Editor’s note: This commentary is by Scott Pavek, who grew up in Barre and recently graduated from UVM with a degree in political science.
[O]n Oct. 4, over 130 days into his campaign, Scott Milne finally updated his website to include a few sentences telling voters what he’d set out to accomplish as a senator. Below are his three points:
1. Self-impose term limits and amend our Constitution to end career politics.
2. Restore power to voters by restricting cash and influence from corporate and special interests.
3. Bridge the partisan divide to reform government and provide real solutions.
On the first point — Milne has pledged to voters that he will serve no more than two terms as senator. While Milne ought to consider explaining to voters why he is deserving of a first term, his pledge is certainly laudable. Amending the U.S. Constitution might be ambitious for someone without legislative experience, however. Milne should keep in mind that voters can already end “career politics” in the Senate — they have the ability to do so every six years.
Milne’s many statements and releases have put him in poor position to bridge any divides among his would-be colleagues.
No voter could find Milne’s second point objectionable. What is missing is how Milne will restore power to voters or restrict corporate influence in politics. He’s suggested introducing legislation to prohibit the use of taxpayer funds in support of any federal project named after a sitting member of Congress. Of course, such narrow legislation wouldn’t prevent tax revenue from being spent recklessly. This seems to be lip service for voters concerned with the national debt — not a route toward meaningful change.
Finally, Milne’s third point has the broadest appeal — who among us likes partisan gridlock in Washington? While bringing together America’s politicians to focus on “real solutions” ought to be on every candidate’s agenda, Milne’s many statements and releases have put him in poor position to bridge any divides among his would-be colleagues. After all, Milne isn’t shy to characterize senators as power-hungry and self-promoting; Milne even went so far to say his opponent had never held a real job. This type of rhetoric isn’t likely to foster cooperation in Washington and marginalizes the work of our senators to pass meaningful bipartisan legislation. How can we expect Milne to bridge any divides if he holds such a negative opinion of his co-workers without having stepped a foot in Washington?
Though this is the closest Milne’s campaign has come to discussing policy, these points still do not create a compelling argument explaining why Vermonters would be best served with Scott Milne in the Senate. If voters are to consider Milne a serious option come November, his campaign will have to put forth some policy positions or make some mention of Scott’s substantive legislative goals. These broad talking points would be more acceptable if Milne had legislative experience, but Milne’s professional career offers no record to review. This experience deficit can be overcome with reasoned, polished policies and clear plans for action — these are the things voters require to make informed decisions in the voting booth. Thus far, the Milne campaign has failed to deliver.
