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!
I agree that there should be restrictions on corporate influence in elections. But what about unions? The VTNEA has a huge influence on what goes on in VT politics and our education system – some good and some not so good. I would be interested in David’s thoughts on this. Should we restrict them also?
I am not afraid of term limits. It fact, elections are every two years and I put myself up for the voters to decide. I am very clear about my positions on just about every major issue. So if I was afraid, I would be more careful in my comments regarding positions so as not to annoy anyone.
I am not sure that term limits for President works great. There have been “good” Presidents who could have done more and “bad” Presidents who have both been limited (good and bad of course are in the eye of the beholder). But as David Crossman says above, anyone who has been in the Statehouse for some time recognizes that the Lobbyists have tremendous power and if the legislators were term limited it would give them far more power. Unless there was going to be term limits on lobbyists, then there should certainly be no limit on people who want to serve.
I am also not sure what people think they will get by having term limits imposed. There is actually a healthy amount of turnover in the legislature. In just the 10 (or maybe it was 12) years between Civil Unions and Marriage Equality there were only 30 of the 150 Representatives still in office. So there is a healthy balance of long term and short term legislators to offer long term memory and experience and new ideas. There is a large percentage who serve for 2 or 3 terms, far less than the 12 years that is recommended above. I say let the voters decide.
There is no marker on the ballot stating that someone is an incumbent. So voters have to vote either by knowledge or name recognition. But it is completely up to a voter to decide who to vote for or whether to vote. Again, there is no marker as to who is an incumbent so the logic above does not work.
It’s a farce that politicians are against term limits.
The president has one and it works great. What are you afraid of Zuckerman?
Corporations have a lot of say. If they want to influence who gets elected, the president/owner of a corporation can donate to a candidate’s campaign. Under Vermont’s current campaign finance laws, they can donate as the corporation and as an individual, in effect giving them twice as much say.
More to your point, though, once legislators are elected, corporations spend millions of dollars lobbying.
Senator Zuckerman I think you’re one of the most candid politicians in Vermont . We’ve never met but from what I know of you from the press you are no bullshitter. Anyway, I think that your efforts to get money out of politics while laudable, are doomed. Money follows power and that’s a law of nature. I’d prefer a system that is open, where money flows but we can see who is paying for what. I think, and it is only my opinion, that what you and your allies propose will only drive the cash flow underground.
Call me cynical but everytime Washington “reforms” campaign finance they simply close some doors while opening new ones- that’s how we got these superpacs.
I appreciate you and your colleagues earnest efforts but in this year’s battle the opposition clearly outmanuvered you.
“Set up, like a bowling pin
Knocked down, it gets to wearin’ thin”
Keep on truckin, maybe 2014 will be your year.
So the problem is uneducated voters, not the legislators themselves? why not concentrate on that? Your problem and solution aren’t lined up.