Across the country, school boards have become the latest front in America’s culture war.
The typically sleepy races have, in recent years, attracted an influx of candidates motivated by school responses to the pandemic, as well as national political issues, like racial justice and LGBTQ+ rights on the left, and backlash against school curricula that address race, equity, gender identity and critical race theory on the right.
Along the way, this new crop of candidates has often found strength in numbers, running as like-minded slates.
All that increased attention has translated to more spending.
Nationally, there has been a notable uptick in spending in local school board races.
Last month, the Texas Tribune reported one conservative political action committee (PAC) had raised $19,000 toward a $100,000 goal ahead of a single three-seat school board race this spring.
Wisconsin Public Radio reported last week that some candidates in heavily contested school board races had raised between $2,000 and $8,000, including contributions from state and local political parties and teachers’ unions.
In Rutland City, the race for Board of School Commissioners last month was no exception. In the 10-person contest for four open seats, candidates raised more than $17,000 from individuals and PACs.
The majority of that money — more than $15,000 — was in support of left-leaning candidates running under a slate proposed by Rutland Forward, a local PAC whose motto is “Making a Rutland for everyone.”
Those candidates included: Courtney Collins, Sara Atkins Doenges, Marisa Kiefaber and Marybeth Lennox-Levins.
The candidates ran on a platform of supporting students and teachers coming out of the pandemic, addressing student behaviors and restoring civility to a school board that had been rocked by controversy in recent years about the debate to change district’s mascot.
Rutland Forward also supported three candidates in the city’s Board of Alderman race: Matthew Whitcomb, Anna Tadio and Michael Talbott.
All candidates but Kiefaber won their bids.
The group, which formed several years ago, registered with the State of Vermont as a PAC last year, according to city resident John Atwood, who serves as the group’s treasurer.
“We did that because we had donors in the community who wanted to, basically, contribute to all the candidates and we thought that it would just be easier for donors to contribute to a PAC and then we would distribute the money evenly throughout all the candidates,” he said.
Rutland Forward wasn’t the only slate running this election cycle.
Another quartet of School Board candidates ran on the “Parents 4 RCPS” slate. They included: Karen Bossi, Heather Hauke, Cynthia Laskevich and Bob Pearo Jr.
The conservative-leaning slate — which grew out of the community that rallied around efforts to reinstate the “Raider” name and arrowhead logo — ran on a platform of addressing student behaviors, holding district leadership more accountable to parents and guardians, and ensuring topics like critical race theory and gender identity weren’t being taught in schools.
According to a campaign finance report, the four candidates filed jointly with the City Clerk’s Office, the slate raised and spent $2,288.53 on the March election.
Of the 18 individual contributions they received, most were $100 and below and came largely from Rutland City and Rutland Town residents, with several coming from the candidates themselves.
The largest single donation was $400 from Rutland GOPAC, a local PAC that supports conservative candidates and organizations.
Bossi, the only candidate who won a seat on the board, expressed concern over the high level of spending in the race, stating, “Rutland Forward spent a huge amount of money on a local school board election, which seems odd.”
Under Vermont law, candidates for local office who have raised or spent $500 or more must file campaign finance reports with the Office of the Secretary of State at regular intervals throughout the election cycle. A final report is due within 40 days of an election.
PACs and any parties that have raised or spent more than $1,000 toward a local election or support candidates in a local election also must file campaign finance reports with the secretary of state.
State statute defines a PAC as “any formal or informal committee of two or more individuals or a corporation, labor organization, public interest group, or other entity, not including a political party, which accepts contributions of $1,000.00 or more and makes expenditures of $1,000.00 or more in any two-year general election cycle for the purpose of supporting or opposing one or more candidates, influencing an election, or advocating a position on a public question in any election, and includes an independent expenditure-only political committee.”
There are 42 active PACs currently registered with the state, according to the Secretary of State’s website.
While required by law, there are no penalties for candidates who don’t file campaign finance reports with the state. Earlier this month, Secretary of State Jim Condos discovered that around 50% of Vermont lawmakers in the House and Senate were not complying with the law, prompting him to send a letter urging them to do so.
Condos said his office doesn’t analyze or audit the campaign finance reports it receives, and reports aren’t meant to be a balance sheet.
“All we are basically is a filing cabinet,” he said. “We have no authority to investigate, no authority to audit to make sure the numbers add up.”
Condos described campaign finance reporting as a “complaint-driven system” and said it was up to the public or the press to analyze the data. He said he usually advises people to file complaints with the Attorney General’s Office.
“Campaign finance is really about transparency,” he said. “It’s about letting the public know, first of all, who’s crossed the threshold to being a candidate; secondly, where their contributions are coming from; and how they’re spending their money.”
While Condos didn’t have any specific data showing more money was being spent in local elections, he said anecdotally it does seem to be increasing.
“I do think we’re seeing a lot more expenditures at the local level than we ever did,” he said. “I do think that local races have become more prominent.”
According to campaign finance reports filed with Rutland City, the four Rutland Forward candidates for school commissioner spent almost $9,500 on the March election.
The candidates raised a total of around $10,520, including in-kind contributions, from more than 70 individual donors, according to reports filed with the Secretary of State’s Office.
Those contributions funded typical campaign materials, such as lawn signs, postcards, letters, postage and social media ads.
Rutland Forward itself raised just over $5,100 in support of its seven candidates, and spent nearly $4,000. The balance will be carried over into the next election cycle, according to Atwood.
The PAC also gave $571 to each of its candidates, and directly paid for the cost of a mailer sent out to voters.
Atwood acknowledged the money the group raised was more than people are accustomed to seeing in local elections but noted that postage was expensive and the pandemic made knocking on doors difficult.
“I think what we’re seeing is, you really need to get your message out and get people to show up at the polls, and you just got to communicate with them multiple times,” he said.
“Over the several years that I’ve been involved with Rutland Forward, we’ve been kind of trying different things and this is just the latest iteration, and it seems to be something that worked pretty well.”
Newly elected School Commissioner Lennox-Levins raised the most money of any individual candidate, bringing in more than $3,200 from 37 individual contributions. Nearly all of those contributions were $100 or less and from Vermont residents living in the city or Rutland High School sending towns.
Lennox-Levins said her fundraising efforts consisted of soliciting family and friends in the community and beyond.
“I just was completely humbled by the amount of donors and the people who stepped up,” she said.
One common name on campaign finance reports filed by Rutland Forward candidates was also their biggest donor: Danny Hogenkamp.
Hogenkamp contributed $1,000 to each of the group’s seven candidates, as well as another $4,210 to Rutland Forward — the maximum allowable amount to a PAC from a single source.
Hogenkamp, 27, grew up attending Rutland Town School and graduated from RHS in 2012. He currently resides in Washington, D.C., but owns property in Rutland Town.
During the pandemic, Hogenkamp said he spent a lot of time back home in Rutland and planned on relocating before delaying that plan due to work commitments. He said he still intends to move back to Rutland at some point in the future.
Hogenkamp is CEO and chair of Grassroots Analytics, a consumer database management company that provides information on potential donors to progressive campaigns, causes, businesses and organizations.
He clarified the company was not a PAC, and his contributions were made in his capacity as a private citizen unrelated to his work.
“The company doesn’t have any agenda,” he said.
Hogenkamp, dismissed accusations that he was an unknown out-of-stater attempting to influence a local election. He noted his family has roots in the Rutland community. His father, Dr. Peter Hogenkamp, is a local family practice physician and novelist.
“I definitely consider Rutland home,” he said.
He said he has been following state and local politics in recent years and Rutland Forward’s slate of candidates caught his eye.
“I think the thing that impressed me most and why I ended up supporting Rutland Forward candidates is that they got together as a slate. They were smart. They pooled ideas. They pooled effort, they pooled time, talent, treasure together and ran as a collective in a very efficient way,” he said.
Hogenkamp acknowledged the size of his contribution might be large but said he had the means to do so and wanted to help.
“I’ve been really lucky with my career so far and looking for ways to give back, so I thought this would be a good one,” he said. “I think my dad has probably imbued me with some overly generous genetics.”
Win or lose, Hogenkamp said it was money well spent.
“The turnout was super high. They got the community more involved. Even if they lost, I don’t care; the money I spent was worthwhile just because they got so many people in Rutland engaged,” he said.
