When the Vermont Senate voted 21-8 three weeks ago to ban corporate and union contributions to political candidates, chuckling broke out on the Senate floor.
Aware that many of those voting in the affirmative had long opposed such a move, Sen. David Zuckerman(P/D-Chittenden) stood up to say, “I hope the ‘yes’ votes were sincere.”
Turns out they weren’t.
On Thursday, with a much broader campaign-finance bill on the verge of final passage, the Senate dramatically reversed course, stripping that legislation of the corporate and union donation ban. This time they voted 19-11 against prohibiting such contributions.
Furious with the last-minute about-face, the ban’s chief proponent, Sen. Peter Galbraith (D-Windham), cast the lone vote against the broader campaign-finance bill, as 29 of his colleagues voted to send it to the House for consideration.
“This bill is a sham,” Galbraith said after the final vote was cast. “It is intended to persuade Vermonters that we are serious about campaign-finance reform when we are not.”
Pictured above: Zuckerman attempts to pigeonhole Sen. Ann Cummings (D-Washington) during a brief recess.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Get’s flushed out? Doubtful… it’s not as if the entire Legislature would turnover all at the same time.
I support 12 year term limits. If you can’t get the important topics to you and your consitituents through in that time, it’s time to step aside and give someone new a shot. The simple fact is, in VT people vote for those marked as incumbents. Most people have only a slight clue about the “big races” and have almost no knowledge of the minor races and candidates. So they vote for the Incumbents because they have already been elected once.
I do wish corporations would stay out of elections. I also do think that as they are getting regulated and taxed by the Legislature, they should have a say. That’s kinda of the basis of our government.
term limits are a sham. when the legislature gets flushed of all its institutional knowledge after everyone is term-limited out, only the lobbyists will be left that know their way through the system.
It is up to people to decide who to elect and not to elect, when to move us out or not. The folks who tend to get far more corporate money are incumbents. If you want incumbents not to have as great an advantage then one would not want corporations to be able to give.
Certainly people who are members of the boards of corporations are allowed to give just like anyone else. The issue is whether the unlimited pockets of corporations should be allowed to give. Obviously there is a difference of opinion, that is perfectly reasonable. But my point was that I was not demonizing them as Tim was indicating we were.
As far as the ability for people to get elected, the primary place that corporate donations go are to the G and LG races as well as the PACs that the D’s (primarily) and the R’s (less so) have for the House and Senate races. This puts amazing power into the hands of the few people that control those PACs. That is part of what creates the leadership power in the Statehouse. So if you like it the way it is, leave well enough alone. If you want there to be less concentrated power and more opportunity for every day people to run, then get the corporate money out.
Also…this bill also limited the unions from being able to give directly as well. They too would need to set up separate PAC’s so that they would not be able to dig into the general kitty to donate to campaigns.
Why should a corporation have no say in how “elected” representatives govern them. Afterall, you tax these businesses and corporations… why do they not have a voice? What exactly are you afraid of?
First we demonize people for self funding there campaigns, now they are bad if they get contributions from companies. Sounds like you need to have a lot of wealthy friends or be an incumbent to get elected… sounds very much like a lot of legislators who want it make it hard for challengers.
I challenge you Mr Zuckerman and all other legislators to institute a term limit bill. 12 years for all representatives, governors, Lt Gov’s and heck, even the Supreme Court Justices.
Thank you folks. Just as a comment related to Tim with a T. I own an S-corp with my wife. I am not against corporations nor am I out to demonize them. However, I do not think that corporate cash pools should be used for campaign contributions. Just because one buys a soda, or juice, that does not mean you want that money used for a campaign contribution. The pooled resources of corporations are far far greater than the average person has to contribute. At some point the field needs to be leveled just a tad.
Corporations, businesses and unions make useful things and provide services we need. Things like computers, electricity, movies, music, cars, bicycles, medicine and hospitals make modern life possible. They have a lot to do with why we no longer get eaten by wolves or die of old age at 23. It is too bad so many in Vermont choose to demonize them to make political hay.
Shame on the Senate. I am grateful that Senators Ashe, Baruth, Fox, Pollina, Zuckerman, Galbraith, Benning, MacDonald, McCormack, and Sears remain in integrity with those who elected them. Vermont has got to put people first—our needs and those of our neighbors—NOT those of our businesses, whether local, statewide, national, or international. That cannot possibly happen if the threat of lost corporate campaign contributions is involved. If Senator Cummings thought raising funds was difficult before, just wait. I’ll remember these votes the next time I get a phone call asking for money.
Good for Senator Ashe, Pollina, Zuckerman, Brauth, and everyone else who consistently voted in favor of this legislation.
Turns out even Vermont politicians are total scum bags. Well done Mr. Baruth. I stand with you on this one.