The real truth about Campaign Finance Reform
Some of you may have seen the opinion piece written by Rob Roper, Chairman of the Vermont State Republican Committee, attacking VPIRG, the Attorney General and two-thirds of the legislature for trying to limit the influence of big money in politics.
Notwithstanding Mr. Roper’s unique take on Vermont politics - which seems to attribute nearly all action in Montpelier to VPIRG’s (no doubt dubious) plotting – what is this all about?
It’s about money.
VPIRG agrees with most citizens and most legislators in believing that money has too much influence in elections and special interests can have too much influence over elected officials. We think the scandals that led to the downfall of Jack Abramoff and former Reps. Randy “Duke” Cunningham and Bob Ney are a national disgrace that should never happen in Vermont.
That’s why VPIRG backed S.164, a modest campaign finance reform bill that set reasonable limits on how much individuals, corporations, political parties and PACs can donate to candidates in Vermont. The legislation had support from Democrats, Progressives and Republicans (see for instance the bill's 28-0 passage in the Senate on second reading last March (more in the blog here).
But the Governor vetoed the bill in a shameful decision to put politics ahead of principle. Again, a bi-partisan group of legislators stood up for voters in the Senate, but in the House the Republican leaders twisted arms to prevent even principled Republican representatives from voting for what they knew was a good bill. The override failed the House by a single vote (more on the override here).
Roper talks about money too, but he uses it as an effective but ultimately dishonest act of misdirection.
You’ll remember misdirection as the part of the trick where a magician gets you to look at one hand, while the other hand does something distinctly un-magical. But if you are doing what the magician wants, all you see is something vanishing –MAGIC!
Roper wants you and the Vermont legislature to focus on the recent decision to settle on legal fees related to the long battle over Vermont's campaign finance reform law that was struck down by the US Supreme Court last year. “Beware,” say Roper, “passing this sort of law will only create more court bills!”
So what’s in the other hand? Those fees being collected from Vermont taxpayers are going to … you guessed it, the lawyer representing the Vermont State Republican Committee. You see, it was the State Republicans, along with the Right to Life Committee and others, that have always objected to Vermont’s ability to regulate money’s influence on politics. It was their lawyer, James Bopp, who argued for nearly a million dollars in legal fees.
Looking beyond Roper's rant, there is good news:
First, with strong backing from Republicans, Democrats, Progressives and Independents in the House and Senate, we have high expectations that a good campaign finance law will be passed swiftly next session. And this time we’ll have the two-thirds vote we need to make a veto irrelevant - should Gov. Douglas stick to his position of opposing any reasonable limits on contributions.
Second, if Roper and his allies are really concerned about the impact of these laws on Vermont, they can return the money they’ve billed the taxpayers for and not sue. No magic, just clean, Green Mountain style politicking.
Notwithstanding Mr. Roper’s unique take on Vermont politics - which seems to attribute nearly all action in Montpelier to VPIRG’s (no doubt dubious) plotting – what is this all about?
It’s about money.
VPIRG agrees with most citizens and most legislators in believing that money has too much influence in elections and special interests can have too much influence over elected officials. We think the scandals that led to the downfall of Jack Abramoff and former Reps. Randy “Duke” Cunningham and Bob Ney are a national disgrace that should never happen in Vermont.
That’s why VPIRG backed S.164, a modest campaign finance reform bill that set reasonable limits on how much individuals, corporations, political parties and PACs can donate to candidates in Vermont. The legislation had support from Democrats, Progressives and Republicans (see for instance the bill's 28-0 passage in the Senate on second reading last March (more in the blog here).
But the Governor vetoed the bill in a shameful decision to put politics ahead of principle. Again, a bi-partisan group of legislators stood up for voters in the Senate, but in the House the Republican leaders twisted arms to prevent even principled Republican representatives from voting for what they knew was a good bill. The override failed the House by a single vote (more on the override here).
Roper talks about money too, but he uses it as an effective but ultimately dishonest act of misdirection.
You’ll remember misdirection as the part of the trick where a magician gets you to look at one hand, while the other hand does something distinctly un-magical. But if you are doing what the magician wants, all you see is something vanishing –MAGIC!
Roper wants you and the Vermont legislature to focus on the recent decision to settle on legal fees related to the long battle over Vermont's campaign finance reform law that was struck down by the US Supreme Court last year. “Beware,” say Roper, “passing this sort of law will only create more court bills!”
So what’s in the other hand? Those fees being collected from Vermont taxpayers are going to … you guessed it, the lawyer representing the Vermont State Republican Committee. You see, it was the State Republicans, along with the Right to Life Committee and others, that have always objected to Vermont’s ability to regulate money’s influence on politics. It was their lawyer, James Bopp, who argued for nearly a million dollars in legal fees.
Looking beyond Roper's rant, there is good news:
First, with strong backing from Republicans, Democrats, Progressives and Independents in the House and Senate, we have high expectations that a good campaign finance law will be passed swiftly next session. And this time we’ll have the two-thirds vote we need to make a veto irrelevant - should Gov. Douglas stick to his position of opposing any reasonable limits on contributions.
Second, if Roper and his allies are really concerned about the impact of these laws on Vermont, they can return the money they’ve billed the taxpayers for and not sue. No magic, just clean, Green Mountain style politicking.
Labels: campaign finance, democracy
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home