Senate Votes 28-0 for New Limits on Campaign Contributions

Vermont’s state Senate voted unanimously in favor of new limits on campaign contributions today signaling strong bi-partisan support for the legislation that will soon move to the House for consideration.

Jeanette White (D-Windham), chair of the Senate Government Operation Committee, reported the bill to her colleagues. She outlined key provisions including the new caps on what individuals may give to candidates, aggregate limits on the political donations that may be given by individuals or corporations, and new limits on the amount of cash that political parties can dole out to candidates.

Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin (D-Windham) spoke passionately about his dismay over the current state of political spending and the corrupting influence of special interest money in campaigns. He specifically noted the influence that the pharmaceutical industry has had over legislative proposals in Washington and right here in Vermont.

In response, Senator Diane Snelling (R-Chittenden) said that she did not believe that money has corrupted politics in Vermont. Nevertheless, she voted for the bill.

Senator George Coppenrath (R-Caledonia) explained his vote for the legislation by stating that “I voted for the bill because I knew it was going to pass.” He had reservations about it, however. He suggested that it was a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

Unfortunately, Sen. Coppenrath missed much of the discussion about the bill that took place in his committee because he was on vacation in Europe when the testimony and discussion took place.

Bottom line – this is a good bill, but it’s only half a loaf. VPIRG will be pushing the Senate to take up public financing of elections later this year so that Vermont can regain its position as a national leader in protecting the integrity and fairness of our elections system.

- Paul Burns
March 27, 2007

Vermont Maple Farmers Make National Headlines

As many of you may recall, last year, VPIRG teamed up with Burr Morse of the Morse Family Farm in Montpelier to have Burr testify in the State Legislature about how global warming was threatening his livelihood and the strong Vermont tradition of maple sugaring. Well, Burr's story helped convince legislators last year and his story is now hitting the national news airwaves.

Last night on NBC Nightly News, Burr and his family were featured in a news segment on global warming to the devastating impact it's having on Vermont's family farms. Cheers to Burr for continuing to tell his story and put a human face on the impacts of global warming.

Watch the video clip here.

Town Meeting Day Success!

Even in the frigid chill of deep winter citizen activists strive to bring positive change to Vermont. This last Tuesday was of course Town Meeting Day, that hallowed Vermont tradition of local democracy at its best. Thousands of people around the state congregated in town halls, schools, and other public places to let their voice be heard. One of the issues not on the docket at any town meeting was House Bill 225 which seeks to transform more than 35% percent of Vermont’s dirty, dangerous, and expensive energy production to clean, safe, and affordable renewable energy.

We at VPIRG love Town Meeting Day because it represents so much of what is good about Vermont’s style of homegrown democracy. So, to honor that fine tradition the field activists of VPIRG and our allies at the Toxics Action Center and Citizens Awareness Network spent the day on a petition drive. We collected signatures at more than 20 sites around the state, including Burlington, Montpelier, up and down Bennington County, and Rutland just to name a few. Why, dear reader, did we stand outside polling places and survive the -30 degree wind chill to collect these signatures? Because H.225 is important. This is a bill that will finally put us on a path towards energy independence.

I must tell you, the day was a success! We collected more than 1,000 signatures in support of H.225. But what good are signatures that don’t get used? These signatures will be traveling around the state to meetings with legislators in order show to them how important this bill is to the future of Vermont. Citizens from across the state came together on Town Meeting Day to voice their support for a clean renewable energy future. Now, we have to bring the legislature together to support this bill. In order to achieve this goal we have been helping interested citizens from across the state set up meetings with their State Senators. So far, we’ve had three meetings with six senators and hope to have at least 3 to 5 more meetings in the next two weeks.

Democracy Program update from our Executive Director

VPIRG’s Democracy Program is about making elections more fair, open and responsive to the will of the people.

As VPIRG’s Executive Director, I’m responsible for most of our State House advocacy work on democracy issues. This year we’re focusing on three big priorities:

1. A comprehensive overhaul of our campaign finance law;
2. Statewide Instant Runoff Voting; and
3. A bill to allow citizens to register to vote on Election Day.

The Senate Government Operations Committee is the place where these issues are considered first. It’s a five-member committee with three Democrats (Jeanette White - Chair; Clair Ayer and Edward Flanagan) and two Republicans (Bill Doyle – Vice Chair, and George Coppenrath).

In a surprise move on Tuesday, Feb. 27th, the committee decided to put off an expected vote on the Election Day Registration bill until 2008. Why? Well, despite the fact that EDR laws in other states have improved voter participation rates, a number of town clerks in Vermont have voiced opposition to the bill, primarily because it could result in more work for them.

For instance, the Middlebury Town Clerk feared that allowing people to register to vote on Election Day would be “incredibly cumbersome and hard to do.” Unless it’s not – meaning few people taking advantage of it. In that case, she wondered, why do it?

The reality is that states with EDR consistently boast turnout rates 10-12 percentage points higher than states without EDR. And clerks in those states have few complaints.

Unfortunately, the Vermont clerks who are against EDR do have a lot of influence with some legislators, particularly in the House of Representatives. There is no doubt that an EDR bill could have been passed the Gov Ops committee and the full Senate this year. But in order to try to build stronger bi-partisan support for EDR, Senator White decided to create a blue ribbon panel to come up with a way to design our EDR law that minimizes the concerns of the clerks while still encouraging higher voter participation.

VPIRG will most likely be picked to be a part of this group. It’s supposed to be set up sometime in the next few weeks. We’ll keep you posted.

Keep an eye out for updates on the VPIRG-backed campaign finance reform bill (S.164 sponsored by Sen. Flanagan) that the Senate committee will take up on March 13th. Testimony on Instant Runoff Voting is scheduled for March 15th.

Cheers,
Paul

Mercury – What a Difference a Week Makes:

Hey Folks – Some major developments in mercury. First the original bill was split in half – dental mercury-amalgam is still H 121. But the thermostat portion of the bill has become a separate committee bill – and will get its own number soon. Second– We had to make some compromises on H 121, but we hope to strengthen the bill again in another committee.

So, where do we stand? H 121 was unanimously approved by the House Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee – the committee members worked hard and heard a lot of testimony – please thank them when you have a chance. The compromise - H 121 now requires dentists to have patients sign a consent form before receiving each procedure involving dental mercury-amalgam. It no longer contains the “outright” ban on dental mercury-amalgam BUT - see what you think about the informed consent, which reads as follows: "Dental amalgam contains approximately 50% mercury, a highly toxic element with potential human risks. Such product should not be administered to a child under 6 years of age or younger, pregnant women, or lactating women.”

Wow! This is powerful language and a great first step. Even a lobbyist for the Vermont Dental Society stated in the paper today that the wording implied a ban. Interesting enough, the E.D. for the Dental Society said dentists are worried that the wording might “scare them [patients] away from using amalgam.”

You think? We wonder, why dentists are afraid to let their patients have fully informed consent. Could it be that patients might realize that mercury placed in their mouths will get into their blood stream? Could it be that patients might be upset that they were never told before that their amalgam dental fillings contained mercury? The American Dental Association states, on an obscure section of their website, that mercury vapor may be released from chewing and grinding your teeth. And the U.S. FDA (Food and Drug Administration) states on their website: “When amalgam fillings are placed in teeth or removed from teeth, they release mercury vapor. Mercury vapor is also released during chewing.”

Hmmm, yes, this might dissuade someone from using mercury-amalgam fillings.

So, next steps. The bill is now likely to go to the House Human Services Committee. The other bill, on thermostat recycling, was also approved by the committee and provides for a $5 cash incentive for contractors that bring in old thermostats that contain mercury. Since current rates of recycling old thermostats are very low, we anticipate that this new change will dramatically raise the rates of recycling, thus preventing more mercury from ending up in landfills which becomes mercury released into our environment. More updates soon. Hey – have fun at your Town Meeting Next Week!

Lead:
Quick note - the ban on lead in consumer products bill, S. 152, was just introduced yesterday by Senator Lyons. Here’s the link for the bill.
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2008/bills/intro/S-152.HTM
When it lands in a committee, we’ll let you know more.

The Sham Of Nuke Power

For those of us working to shut down Vermont Yankee, we know we're up for a fight. We're up against a well-financed corporate PR machine that has already been placing misleading ads in newspapers across Vermont. We wanted to share with our readers the following article about this tactic of false advertising and let you know that VPIRG and our partners in the Safe Power Vermont coalition will be working hard to counter this disinformation with the facts that Vermonters need to make a well-informed decision on how to secure Vermont's clean AND SAFE energy future!

The Sham Of Nuke Power & Patrick Moore
Opinion: Harvey Wasserman
February 28, 2007
From: http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/7/2007/1502

Vermont, like too many other places with nuke reactors, was recently disgraced by an industry-sponsored visit from Patrick Moore, who claims to be a "founder" of Greenpeace, and who is out selling nuclear power as a "green" technology. The two claims are roughly equal in the baldness of their falsehood. But the impacts of the lies about Vermont Yankee---like so many other reactors---are far more serious. Read the full article here.