New video calls for Veto Override on Campaign Finance Reform Bill

Check out this great new video by a volunteer asking the Legislature to override Governor Douglas’ veto of the Campaign Finance Reform bill.



Every voice counts when democracy is at stake. So call your legislator and ask them to vote yes on the veto override of S.278 by calling 802 828-2231

New York Blogger Takes Douglas to Task For IRV Veto

It seems we're not the only ones who think IRV is a common sense way to hold fair elections:

From the New Yorker blog of Hendrik Hertzberg

Yesterday, the governor of Vermont vetoed a bill that would have instituted instant runoff voting for that adorable state’s (sole) representative and (two) senators in Congress.

Instant runoff voting, as you (being a reader of this blog) probably know, eliminates the “spoiler” effect in the one-winner elections standard in the United States; guarantees that the winner has at least grudging support, of a majority; and guarantees that a candidate whom most voters really, truly don’t want can’t get elected. The way it works is this: (a) You list your choices in order of preference. (b) If someone gets an outright majority of first choices, that’s it. (c) Otherwise, there’s an “instant runoff”­the biggest loser gets dropped from the counting and his or her voters’ second choices get counted along with everybody else’s first choices. (d) Repeat (c) till someone has a majority, though this is almost never necessary. I.R.V. is used in Australia and Ireland, where voters like it fine, and in several American cities­including Burlington, Vermont.

Anyway, the Vermont I.R.V. bill passed with impressive­but, alas, not quite veto-proof­margins in both the state senate (16-12) and the state house of representatives (81-60). It had the support of lots and lots of upstanding Vermonters, including Howard Dean, Senator Bernie Sanders, Congressman Peter Welch, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, and the citizens of more than fifty bucolic communities who had passed resolutions of support in their town meetings.

Nevertheless, the governor, James Douglas, nixed it. Third-party candidates often run in Vermont, and usually they’re Greens or other leftish types. In Vermont, therefore, I.R.V. would probably help Democrats more often than Republicans. Governor Douglas is a Republican. So he vetoed it. This was expected.

Also expected was that he would not mention partisan considerations in his veto message. What was unexpected was the message’s laughably abysmal intellectual quality.

Let’s take a look at some key passages in the order they appear in Douglas’s message.

There are serious flaws with this proposal to alter Vermont’s system of elections. This system has served the people of Vermont well for more than 200 years.


Wrong! Vermont has no two-hundred-year-old “system of elections.” It has, and has had, a whole bunch of systems, most of them closer to I.R.V. than to simple plurality. Throughout the nineteenth century, a candidate for U.S. senator or representative had to win an outright majority to be elected. Otherwise, they’d just run the election again and again until someone did. This hardly ever happened, but it was the law. From 1916 until 1940, if no one had a majority they’d have a runoff. And right now, in gubernatorial elections, if no one has a majority the legislature picks the winner.

[T]he process offered by this bill cannot result in a candidate being the top choice of a majority of voters. It is mathematically impossible for the candidate chosen by the IRV process to receive a majority of first votes cast. In other words, use of an IRV system requires a significant number of second and third choices­not the voter’s real choice­to be counted. It is therefore not valid to conclude, as the advocates and special interests do, that the winner of an IRV election would receive a majority of the vote.


Wrong! I.R.V. “cannot result in a candidate being the top choice of a majority of voters”? Such an outcome is “mathematically impossible”? Do I really have to explain why this is crazy wrong? (If I do, try this: In an I.R.V. election, if a candidate has a majority of first votes, that candidate is elected­because, er, he or she has a majority of first votes. What’s mathematically impossible about that?)

Perhaps the governor meant that if no candidate receives a majority of first choices, then­er, no candidate has received a majority of first choices. But we already knew that.

Finally, this system would undoubtedly lead to backroom deal making between candidates who urge supporters to vote for or against a second choice candidate if no one receives a majority. This would erode public confidence in the process.


It is certainly likely that I.R.V. would, for example, encourage like-minded candidates to urge their supporters to make each other their second choice. I.R.V. encourages coalition-building and discourages negative campaigning. But that’s a feature, not a bug.

Never fear, I.R.V. fans. One of these days, Vermont will have a different governor.

Three Victories For Vermont In Two Weeks

Over the last two weeks we’ve seen some huge victories for the people of Vermont. First, the Senate passed a bill that would cut the cost of Mammograms in the state to a flat rate of $25 per person. This is huge. Why? Because in breast cancer, like any cancer, early detection is the key to a quick and healthy recovery.

Second, the House and Senate have now both passed S.209. Some of you may remember this bill as H.520, the Comprehensive Global Warming and Energy Effeciency bill that we all worked so hard to pass last year. The one main difference: There is no tax on Vermont Yankee. We’ll still see great things for renewable energy and for energy efficiency out of the bill. On this one specifically I want to thank you all for your hard work. It’s been a tumultuous year but in the end, we won.

Finally, the House. has passed a bill that would tighten regulations on lead used in housing. This bill specifically focuses on tenant housing like apartments. As many of you know Vermont has some of the oldest housing stock in the nation and while that makes for some beautiful homes, it also means there is quite a bit of lead out there. If passed by the Senate this bill will go a long way to help reducing the amount of that dangerous toxin in our homes.

None of these battles could have been won without you. Thank you for all you do.

Sean

House Committee Passes Campaign Finance Bill

In a victory for common sense, the House Government Operations Committee voted 9-0 in favor of a VPIRG-backed campaign finance bill on Friday, Feb. 8th. The bill (S.278) had Democratic, Progressive and Republican support, and it now heads for a vote of the full House on Feb 13th.

If you’re more than a casual reader of political news in Vermont, you know that VPIRG has been attacked by a bevy of right-wing ideologues lately including John McClaughry, Jack McMullen and Rob Roper. One of the reasons they’re so upset is because we’ve been leading the charge for fair elections in the state. It apparently bothers them to no end that the public wants more of a voice in how candidates are elected and legislators of all political stripes are listening.

Even Gov. Jim Douglas, who vetoed the campaign finance bill last year, has adopted a much more moderate tone this year than the head of his party, Mr. Roper. Roper has aligned himself instead with Indiana attorney Jim Bopp, who insulted and threatened legislators after being allowed the courtesy of testifying by phone.

Since the bill had support from all three major parties in committee, it’s likely to pass with overwhelming support on the House floor. We expect that it will have the support of more than two-thirds of those present. That will be a strong message to the governor.

Douglas wanted legislators to leave a massive loophole in Vermont law that allowed unlimited giving from political parties. They declined. So, will he veto a bill that puts reasonable limits on what individuals, corporations, political action committees and parties can give to candidates?

We can’t predict that. But if he does, it’s likely he will be overridden and we would not be surprised to see moderate Republicans in both chambers joining with independents, Progressives and Democrats to support the bill.

This is a good time to let you House member(s) know that you support S.278 and you expect them to do so too!

Paul

Campaign Finance Debate About More Than Just Elections.

(The following is Executive Director Paul Burns response to Jack McMullen's op-ed published in the Burlington Free Press and Rutland Herald decrying VPIRG's work on campaign finance reform)

Jack McMullen criticized the public interest effort to prevent special interest money taking over Vermont elections as it has elsewhere in America.

To his credit, McMullen noted that the Vermont Public Interest Research Group has a long history of success in fighting in the public’s interest for things like clear air, clean water and safe cars. He could also have added that in standing up for average Vermonters, VPIRG challenges some of the most powerful corporate interests in this country.

Why do we do it? Because for over 35 years, VPIRG’s mission has been to protect and promote the health of Vermont’s people, environment and locally-based economy. To no one’s surprise, citizens who support this mission often find monied special interests vigorously blocking reforms that would allow Vermonters to live more prosperous and healthy lives.

For instance, International Paper wasn’t about the public’s interest when it proposed burning tires for fuel and polluting the lungs of Vermonters downwind. The U.S. auto industry didn’t sue Vermont to stop the state’s new clean car standards because of its concern about the health of our kids. And health insurance companies that deny reasonable coverage and oppose cost-effective reforms sure aren’t putting patients first. Big corporations typically pursue their own narrow interests.

The tremendous wealth of these corporations gives them power, pure and simple. Whether it’s the lobbyists they hire to work every day on their behalf, or the campaign contributions they give directly to candidates, political parties and PACs, the special interests buy influence that can swamp the ability of working Vermonters to be heard by their government.

That’s where VPIRG comes in. We’ve never wavered in our fight to win concrete results for the people of this state on issues like affordable home heating, prescription drugs, product safety, health care, climate change, and fair elections. Not because we have a financial stake in the outcome, but because we fight for the public interest.

Fortunately, there are [better to pick a real number than leave it vague] of Vermonters from all across the state who have donated their time or money in support of our work. Some of these citizens also agree to serve on VPIRG’s Board of Trustees without the pay, benefits and stock options that motivate members of corporate boards. Rather, service on our Board is one more way for these citizens to give back to the state they love. Let’s be clear, VPIRG Trustees are not anti-business. In fact, as McMullen notes, many of them are successful business entrepreneurs in their own right. But they also believe that effective democracy depends on the power of the people, not the special interests.

That’s what this year’s campaign finance bill is all about. It ensures that everyone is invited to participate in supporting the candidates of their choice and that a few individuals, PACS or corporations cannot dominate an election.

The bill (S.278) sets reasonable limits on campaign contributions ranging from $500 for House candidates up to $2,000 for gubernatorial candidates over the course of an election cycle. It also sets a cap of $40,000 on what any individual may give in a two-year cycle to influence the outcome of state elections in Vermont. Are those who oppose that looking out for the average Vermonter or for those few people eager to give more than $40,000 to buy influence?

Some groups, like the Right to Life Committee and the Republican Party might prefer to see no contribution limits at all so that a few well-healed ideologues can funnel as much money as they want into Vermont politics. At VPIRG, that strikes us as giving more power to people who don’t need it. Better to even the playing field, so the public’s interest is served.

~Paul Burns

Lead Bill In Dangerous Position In House

A bill that would protect children from lead in housing is currently before the House Human Services Committee and may be voted on as soon as tomorrow. While H.352 is a much needed next step, opposition from landlords may be leaving legislators in doubt. It is critical that an outspoken few not prevent us from protecting children from the dangers of lead.

Approximately 3,000 children in Vermont have dangerous levels of lead in their blood. Elevated blood lead levels can result in a variety of health problems and can damage the future development of children. As Vermont has some of the oldest housing stock in the nation, lead-based paint in housing is the primary source of lead poisoning in Vermont.

Our current law does not do enough to address this issue. We need a multi-pronged approach that is both practical and protective of our most vulnerable population. H.352 takes that approach by:

1) Further safeguarding the health of children in rental housing;
2) Expanding protections to children in owner-occupied housing as well as rental housing and;
3) Ensuring that all 1 and 2 year olds are screened for elevated blood lead levels.

Vermont is faced with a public health problem that we all must play a role in resolving. This means that landlords, homeowners, parents, the medical community, and the State of Vermont must all do our part to ensure that our children are safe and healthy.

You can let the members of the committee know that this bill is important to the children of Vermont by going here:
http://capwiz.com/vpirg/issues/alert/?alertid=10904081&type=CU

~Chairty

Senate Gives Overwhelming Support to Campaign Finance Bill

The state Senate passed VPIRG-backed limits on political contributions on a quick voice vote on Friday. In the roll call vote on the bill (S.278) taken the day before, the vote was 24-5 in favor of the bill. The vote was almost entirely along party lines with Democrats, though Sen. Diane Snelling (R-Chittenden) crossed party lines to vote in favor.

Sen. Jeanette White - Chair of the Gov. Operations Committee, and Sen. Ed Flanagan were the chief backers of the bill. Two Republicans, Kevin Mullin and George Copprenrath, argued on the floor of the Senate against the bill's passage but their arguments were more rhetorical than factual, and they failed to generate any support.

James Bopp, an Indiana attorney and the best friend the fat cat special interests ever had, also spoke out against the bill by phone during committee hearings. The litigation-happy Bopp is threatening to sue the state again as he did 10 years ago on behalf of the Right to Life Committee and the Republican Party.

The bill also drew attention from a right-wing lobby group near Washington, DC. The Center for Competitive Politics sent an urgent memo opposing the bill to members of the House and Senate this week. CCP was founded by Bradley Smith, former head of the Federal Election Commission. Before being appointed to head the FEC, Smith called for the repeal of the very law that established the agency. Smith thinks the Swift Boat attacks demonstrate a vibrant democracy. He's said that "the ideal system is ... no regulation." And he claims that "soft money is one of the good things in the system, and it continues to puzzle me why soft money in particular creates such outrage."

Will Gov. Douglas also side with soft money advocates and Swift Boat defenders? Or will he decide to side with voters this year and sign the bill? We'll know soon enough; the House begins consideration of the bill next week and it should be passed by both houses before the end of January.

Paul