Members of a Vermont House committee have plenty of questions about S.120, the Senate-passed bill that would ban corporate campaign contributions to candidates or political parties.
The House Government Operations Committee held its first hearing on the bill Friday morning. Both Democrats and Republicans appeared to be skeptical that the bill would accomplish its purpose: to keep Vermont immune from the effects of big-money politics. That’s because corporations would still be able to donate unlimited funds through political action committees and independent organizations.
“Many of us have gotten lots of calls asking us to get corporate money out of Vermont politics,” said committee chair Rep. Maida Townsend (D-South Burlington). “This bill, the PACs would collect the money and put it into our political system. If it’s direct from corporation to candidate it’s not OK, but if it goes from corporation to PAC to candidate, it is OK?”
Rep. Jim Harrison (R-Chittenden) wondered, half-jokingly, if S.120 didn’t simply create “a way to launder the money,” and pointed out that “any candidate could set up a PAC and accept corporate contributions.”
Deputy Secretary of State Chris Winters said that his office supports S.120 “in concept,” but warned of unintended consequences. “It could encourage the creation of a lot more PACs, which could diminish transparency,” he said. “It could funnel more money to out-of-state PACs and independent organizations.”
And he pointed out that federal law bans direct corporate donations to candidates, but “the money has found ways to get around that.” He expressed the office’s support for a beefed-up system of public campaign financing as a more effective way to limit the influence of corporate cash.
“I was glad to hear the secretary of state’s office make a strong stand in favor of public financing,” Townsend said after the hearing. “Because what we have now is pretty weak. Doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, as far as getting all these different pressures out of the political process.”
The current public financing system is underfunded and imposes very tough restrictions on candidates seeking to qualify for public money. And if they do accept public funding, the candidates are prohibited from accepting any further support — financial or otherwise. In recent years, lawmakers have turned a cold shoulder to proposals to improve the system.
Rep. John Gannon (D-Wilmington), who refuses to accept corporate or PAC contributions, was also wary of unintended consequences. “If we do this, the money is just going to go dark,” he said. “Wouldn’t it be better to improve disclosure requirements?”
Members of the panel didn’t vote on the bill or even conduct a straw poll. But the committee’s 11 members include six Democrats, one Progressive and four Republicans. If the Republicans vote “No” and two others (hypothetically, Townsend and Gannon) joined them, the bill would die in committee.
Consideration of the bill is scheduled to continue on Wednesday with more testimony and committee discussion. With perhaps three weeks left in the legislative session, time is definitely not on S.120’s side.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
It is unfortunate but unsurprising to see Democrats and Republicans pushing back against this important legislation that would go a long way towards getting corporate money our of our elections. Right now a corporation can donate the maximum amount of money to any number of candidates of their choosing. This allows any corporation to give tens of thousands of dollars directly to Vermont candidates and political parties. Under S.120, a corporation would no longer be allowed to donate directly to candidates or political parties. It is true that they could continue to donate to PAC’s, but they would be limited to donating $4,000 to a PAC. This has the potential to immediately stop tens of thousands of corporate dollars from being spent in our elections.
In reality, much of the money coming from businesses will not go into PAC’s. In most cases the business owner will simply make a donation as an individual, or not at all. This creates greater transparency in our elections and helps limit the amount of corporate money flooding our political system.
Please encourage your state reps to support S.120. This issue is to important to let die in committee because of poor excuses intended to obscure the issue.
Public financing of elections. Period.
End the legalized bribery of Citizens United.
It’s all pretty simple. Limit political donations to registered Vermont voters and set a contribution limit per registered voter. If Vermont did that it would have the cleanest, most honest and fair statewide voting system in the country. Unfortunately, few, if any, politicians would have the courage to support such a simple and straight-forward concept.
“It’s all pretty simple. Limit political donations to registered Vermont voters and set a contribution limit per registered voter. If Vermont did that it would have the cleanest, most honest and fair statewide voting system in the country. Unfortunately, few, if any, politicians would have the courage to support such a simple and straight-forward concept.”
Agreed. For the life of me I can’t understand why a person who doesn’t live or vote in Vermont is allowed to donate money to a candidate running for political office in Vermont, whether its Governor, Lt. Governor, Congressman, Senator, or any office. Bernie is supposed to be representing Vermont in the Senate, not Barbara Streisand.
The limiting contributions to the registered voters in VT would be a great idea but our politicians would never agree. I feel if they are limiting corporate contributions, then PACS and unions should be regulated in exactly the same way
Don’t forget mayor. Why would anyone from out of state really care about who the mayor of burlington is?
“Don’t forget mayor. Why would anyone from out of state really care about who the mayor of burlington is?”
Agree completely. Tell it to Corina Driscoll. And her stepfather.
There is too much money in politics. Corporate donations are the worst of it. Bernie is right, the big donors buy the government. S 120 would be a great first step. I understand 44 states already have a ban on corporate donations. More people might vote if this greater transparency happened.