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.

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

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

Give the People What They Want!

Three down and two to go and the will of Vermont has never been so clear. More than a hundred residents came out to the Montpelier Elks Club last night for the third in a series of DPS forums designed to gauge public opinion on Vermont’s energy future. The clear sentiment – Vermonters want wind and renewables, not nuclear and fossil fuels!

Those in attendance ranked coal, oil, and nuclear power among the three bottom choices for Vermont’s future energy mix. The top three choices - you guessed it – energy efficiency, wind, and hydro.

Other noteworthy findings include the following:

• 97% wanted to see Vermont increase energy from renewables;
• 70% strongly agreed that Vermont should require that a minimum of electricity sold should come from renewables;
• 78% would strongly support a wind farm even if it were visible from where they lived;
• 81% thought that over the next 10 years Vermont should increase efficiency spending;
• And voters were most “extremely concerned” about radioactive waste and greenhouse gases.

This forum was a great exercise in democracy. Give the people a voice and they’ll make thoughtful decisions. Let’s just hope that our leaders and the DPS take the wants of Vermonters seriously!

To sign up for the last two hearings, click here.

By Charity Carbine, VPIRG Environmental Health Advocate

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.

Another take on the day of near overrides

I said earlier this week that no matter which way the votes went on July 11 we would make history. Not to toot my own horn, but I sure was right.

Sean and Colleen's posts below cover a lot of the mood and feeling of the day. I wanted to add my own perspective as well. I also want to succinctly lay out all of the various votes that happened that day because I think that story of procedure is illuminating in this case.

The first vote, and first surprise of the day actually happened in the Senate which voted early in the day to override the governor's veto 24-5, with one Senator absent (get the roll call here). The outcome may have been expected but one surprise was Sen. Scott (R-Washington) who crossed party lines to support the implementation of S.164's common-sense limits on campaign contributions.

While the Senate was voting, the crowd of override supporters inside the statehouse was building. By 9:30 I'd already run out of our first 250 piece printing of 1-page of talking points for citizen lobbyists. By 10 am when the House convened to take up the global warming bill we were overflowing the House chamber and doing out best not to obstruct traffic in the halls.

And when the House broke to caucus at about 10:30, we were at our peak of attendance, about 400 people, and absolutely jammed rooms 10 and 11 where the Republicans and Democrats, respectively, met to debate the bill's merits by party. I literally could not get in the door to room 10, but heard that some legislators were a little annoyed to find a crowd of constituents and citizens taking up most of the room's chairs. In Room 11, which I did squeeze into for a minute, people were seated in ever square inch of floor space, as well as in every chair, and Speaker Symington got several impromptu ovations from the crowd for her defense of the bill. What I remember most from the Speaker's speech, which i admittedly did not hear all of, was her request that members of her party remember that "Our votes today are going to build the future our children and grand children live in. That's what this vote is about."

But the speaker's passionate appeal, the 400 citizens, the thousands of phone calls and the will of 72% of Vermonters was denied on Wednesday. At a little after 11am, the House re-convened to take up H.520. There were some powerful speeches both for and against the bill: rep Rachel Weston spoke eloquently in defense of the bill and the override I thought. As did our perennial champion on this issue, Rep. Klein of east Montpelier.

By now you'll have read the coverage that we once again won the majority, but not a big enough one to enact the bill: 86-61 was the vote, almost identical to what it was last time. We did convince a few Reps to change their vote and support the bill. But in the end the united front of big business and the governor proved to big an obstacle for just over 1/3 of elected Representatives.

It was the among the toughest 5 minutes of my life when they called that roll and so few Representatives had changed their minds. I know it was tough for a lot of you too, who have worked so hard to make global warming a priority for the House and Senate. But like any activist worth his salt, I quickly converted my disappointment to outrage. And when the House adjourned for lunch and a torrential rain storm prevented our plans for a rock-concert and rally on the front steps we did the only thing we could: James Moore and I marched up to the Speaker's office and demanded that the public be given the use of the House floor for 20 minutes so we could to tell the assembled activists that the fight was not over yet.

20 minutes later, James climbed up to the speaker's podium and from the applause you would have thought he was a conquering hero. Even after the difficult defeat, our crowd filled all 150 seats the legislature uses, plus most of the gallery. And when Bill McKibben told them that the issue wasn't going away and neither would we until the governor and ALL legislators start listening, the cheers form the crown could be heard all over the building.

But the biggest surprise came from the last speakers to join us on the floor of the House: Senate President Peter Shumlin and Senate Majority Leader John Campbell jogged into the room fresh from a hurried lunch-meeting with the Speaker. Over lunch and in light of the narrow loss in the House, the Senators had agreed to press their chamber to suspend it's own rules and take up a compromise energy bill based on H.520, but without the tax on Vermont Yankee. Suddenly, energy and global warming legislation was alive again in the statehouse as Shumlin and Campbell worked with senators from both parties to forge a consensus on the bill.

Meanwhile, our crowd cleared the floor and the house took up S.164. The vote count was incredibly close, and House Republicans that had been considering breaking party ranks to support the override as Sen. Scott had already done could be seen getting a thorough dressing-down from party leadership just outside the chamber. In the end, however, we turned up one vote short 97-50 (3 likely yes votes were absent) and fat-cats and special interests gained a 6-month reprieve from any limits on spending. That vote won't stand for long, however. As soon as the House reconvenes in January and attendance is more likely from those missing 3 legislators, look for this bill to re-appear on the floor and get enacted quickly with few if any amendments.

Finally, we were down to the true last hope for the energy bill. The senate motion to suspend rules passed and the bill was given debate and consideration. In one telling moment I saw republican Senators Phil Scott, Bill Doyle and Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie (who presides over the Senate) with their head's close together just outside the Governor's office. If you saw Chanel 3's coverage (read the transcript here), you know that the Governor was having none of it. Despite impassioned requests from legislative leadership and members of his own party, the Governor refused any compromise on energy and climate legislation: at one point he even refused to speak to Speaker Symington, and sent his chief of Staff Betsy Bishop out to send her away while he remained sequestered away in his office behind a heavy door and 2 state troopers.

Even without the governor, we were able to convince a bi-partisan coalition of Senators to support the compromise energy bill, which passed 23-6. But the Republicans in the House were not as willing to move legislation as their Senate Counterparts. In a striking moment of partisan-division obstructing progress on an issue that has clearly captured public attention: the House split exactly along party lines - 93-49 - on a vote about whether or not to even consider the new bill from the Senate. That vote was short of the 3/4 majority needed to suspend the Houses' rules. With that, climate change legislation was truly dead for the year. The House voted to adjourn a few minutes later and we were left with the re-caps, the spin and about 500 little plastic sticker-backings to clean up.

In all, the day was a disappointment for sure. But it was also hugely energizing. As Paul and several other staff have noted, this was one of the largest turnouts in State House history. And coming as it did on a work-day in the middle of July, that is an achievement in itself.

The Senate's willingness several times to look beyond partisan wrangling and back legislation that was good for Vermont was also encouraging and a sure sign that in Vermont, as in the national Congress, we sometimes look to the smaller and more collegial of our two legislative bodies to provide leadership on challenging policy issues.

And finally I am given hope by the simple math of it all: a shrinking minority of legislators and the Governor opposed our bills. They backed the interests of a handful of multi-billion dollar corporations and fat-cat donors. But just how long do you think they can hold out with 73% of the public and the legislature supporting our cause? How long can a majority block, filibuster and obstruct progress before passage of time and rising of consciousness deliver a victory to our team?

Not long I think, not long. Stay tuned. The last vote on global warming is not cast yet in the legislature or in the voting booth and we're counting on your support to win the next round.

Overrides Fail But the Battle Goes On...

Nearly 500 Vermonters filled the State House today in a passionate attempt to get their legislators to put politics aside and do the right thing for the future of this state by overriding two gubenatorial vetos of the campaign finance reform and global warming energy bills. Sadly, in both cases enough of those legislators failed to listen to the overwhelming majority of Vermonters and chose special interest over the public interest by voting to sustain the vetoes.

The good news is that we gained momentum -- and votes -- on every vote today. That, together with the hundreds of Vermonters that joined us in this effort, will help ensure that we carry this momentum forward to make sure that in the end, we prevail. As Bill McKibben said today, we are gaining momentum and we're not going away.

Stay tuned for more details from today's momentous events, including the appearance at the State House of that single polar bear that Jim Douglas refuses to help.

Are you ready to rumble?

Tomorrow is the big day for both campaign finance and global warming. The VPIRG office is a hub of activity: a crew of interns from our sibling-organization TAC is making posters and cutting the bright green stickers that activists will be wearing to identify themselves as pro-override; the copier is running at maximum speed churning out talking points, posters and flyers; and staff are furiously answering calls and emails from citizens all over the state who want to be part of the history made tomorrow. In a minute you'll get an email from us inviting you to join us at the State House tomorrow or call your legislator and tell them to vote yes on both override votes.

Earlier today, we held a news conference with AARP and VBSR releasing new poll data that shows a whopping 72% of Vermonters support H.520's plan to cut heating bills and global warming pollution. We also released a list of more than 150 Vermont businesses that have signed a petition endorsing the override - so much for the bill being anti-business, huh? Moments after our press conference ended, the Speaker and Pro-Tem emerged from a last meeting with Governor seeking a fair compromise on the bill. They left empty-handed. Governor Douglas, it seems, is more interested in scoring political points than advancing legislation that will lower heating bills, create jobs and fight global warming.

And so we go once more to the breach, and it's going to be quite a show. Not just the vote, mind you: our plans include speeches from Bill McKibben, musical performances by X10 and a local rock group, and a visit from a friendly polar bear - you know, the one Douglas doesn't think we can save?

I do hope you can join us, and once again I'll be blogging from the floor whenever the vote gets underway...thanks again!

Douglas Picks politics ahead of principle

By Paul Burns, VPIRG Executive Director

Governor Douglas vetoed a popular campaign finance bill on May 31st that had been passed earlier this year in a unanimous vote of the Senate and with tri-partisan support in the House.

VPIRG worked very hard to pass this legislation in order to have some reasonable contribution limits in place for the 2008 elections after the Supreme Court struck down Vermont’s landmark campaign finance law last year.

Unfortunately, the governor blundered badly by failing to do his homework before vetoing this bill – S.164. His stated objections don’t hold up to a review of actual facts. Consider his four principle concerns:

1) Proposed individual and party contribution limits will extend a form of political protection to incumbents.

Response:
Research presented to the House Government Operations Committee by UVM campaign finance expert Tony Gierzinski proves that House races run under the strict limits in place from 2000 – 2004 were more competitive (more incumbents lost) than in races run before or since.

VPIRG analysis of some of the most competitive House and Senate races in 2006 shows effective campaigns can be waged by challengers in Vermont under the limits contained in S.164. In fact, almost no candidates raised money in amounts that would violate the limits in S.164 despite the fact that the law allowed for larger gifts last year.

Finally, a 2006 academic research study found that, “Analyses of both the number of contributors and the dollar amount of contributions [to gubernatorial candidates] suggest no support for an increased bias in favor of incumbents resulting from the presence of campaign contribution limits. If anything, contribution limits can work to reduce the bias that traditionally works in favor of incumbents. Also, contribution limits do not seem to increase disparities between gubernatorial candidates in general” (emphasis deleted). Eom & Gross, Contribution Limits and Disparity in Contributions Between Gubernatorial Candidates, 59 Pol. Research Q. 99, 99 (2006).

2) The proposed limits on the activities of political parties will empower special interest groups – whose independent actions and expenditures are unlimited – and provide a platform for these well-financed, often out-of-state, organizations to run more ads and make more independent expenditures than ever before.

Response:
S.164 imposes far greater restrictions on PACs than on political parties. Both political parties and PACs are free to make unlimited independent expenditures under the bill (since they cannot be restrained constitutionally). But while political parties can give up to $30,000 to a candidate running for governor (and lesser amounts to down-ticket offices), PACs are limited to giving no more than what an individual may give ($2,000 for governor and less for other offices). Furthermore, political parties are given wide leverage to perform various party-building activities and provide direct support to candidates in ways that are exempt from the contribution limits. PACs are not given a similar exemption under S.164. Therefore, the suggestion that political parties will be unable to respond to an independent attack ad sponsored by a PAC is factually incorrect.

The theory that such attack ads will be prevented by some sense of mutually assured destruction is also highly suspect. The ads are run in order to attack a particular candidate. The “Swift Boat Veterans” were probably not much worried about being attacked themselves. More to the point, there’s a better way to prevent such ads from being run by “outsiders” in Vermont. The 2006 U.S. House race proved that a highly competitive race could be waged without resorting to such negative advertising. The major party candidates in that race both deserve credit for making clear from the outset that they did not welcome such spending on their behalf. They recognized that Vermonters generally do not respond well to such advertising. That’s the kind of leadership we could use from the governor.


3) This proposal could be attacked as being unconstitutional just like the old law was.

Response:
Any law can be challenged, of course. But S.164 is very different from the law struck down by the Supreme Court last year. The 1997 campaign reform law that was challenged by the Republican Party and Right to Life Committee was designed to force a reconsideration of a 1976 Court ruling that said essentially that money equals speech. That law also had the lowest contribution limits in the nation. It was no surprise to anyone that the legal case made it all the way to the Supreme Court. By contrast, the contribution limits in S.164 are nearly identical to the state of Missouri’s contribution limits that were upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Gov’t PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000). This legislation (S.164) is on solid legal ground. However, the governor’s actions have opened the door to more litigation in Vermont because the old limits now in place could easily be challenged and quite possibly thrown out before November 2008. That would leave Vermont with no limits at all for next year’s elections!

4) The governor has also suggested that VPIRG’s work on the legislation was self-serving, that we will somehow derive a benefit if the law passes.

Response:
VPIRG is a nonpartisan organization that neither supports nor opposes candidates running for office. By contrast, it is Gov. Douglas who would benefit most by eliminating reasonable limits on what parties and very wealthy individual scan give. In the past he’s taken in more than $600,000 from the Republican Party in a single race! Now that’s self-serving.

A veto override vote is scheduled for July 11 at the State House.

IRV passes Senate!

A Democracy Program Update from Executive Director Paul Burns

VPIRG members and activists helped to push the Instant Runoff Voting bill over the top in the state Senate today by a vote of 16-13 with one absent. Thanks a lot for the phone calls, emails and letters you sent to senators on this one. Every vote mattered! Other groups pushing IRV include Common Cause, the VT League of Women Voters, Older Women's League and the Grange.

The vote breakdown is below. It played out exactly as we figured it would in the hours leading up to the vote. No surprises as the votes were cast. Senators White, Campbell, Ayer, Flanagan and Shumlin deserve special credit for helping to make this happen.

Click here to email your Senators and tell them what you think of thier IRV vote

Senators who argued on the floor against IRV included Mullin, Miller, Snelling, Doyle, Maynard and Scott.

The House Government Operations Committee will take up the bill once the Senate finishes with it tomorrow. Early predictions are that a vote in the House will also be close.

-Paul

VOTE COUNT on the IRV BILL (S.108) in the VERMONT SENATE
April 25, 2007

YES - 16
Ayer
Bartlett
Campbell
Carris
Collins
Condos
Cummings
Flanagan
Giard
Kittell
Lyons
MacDonald
McCormack
Racine
Shumlin
White

NO - 13
Coppenrath
Doyle
Hartwell
Kitchel
Maynard
Mazza
Miller
Mullen
Nitka
Scott
Sears
Snelling
Starr

ABSENT
Illuzzi

Sen. Doyle’s Fails to Block IRV

A Democracy Program Update from Executive Director Paul Burns

Despite Sen. Bill Doyle’s best efforts at obstruction, the VPIRG-backed IRV bill survived in a 3-2 vote today, the Senate’s Government Operations Committee passed the bill in a 3-2 vote.

The bill is all about voter choice and majority rule (read more about IRV here). It’s a good thing for Vermont. Sen. Jeanette White, chair of the committee, deserves credit for moving the bill to a successful vote. Senators Ed Flanagan and Clair Ayer also voted for the bill, which would institute IRV for US House and US Senate races in Vermont.

The two Republicans on the committee voted against the bill. Sen. Doyle was joined by Sen. George Coppenrath.

The vote on the Senate floor will not fall entirely along partisan lines though. We expect a VERY close vote with some Democrats voting against the bill (S.108). It could come up on the floor as soon as this Friday, April 20th. Visit our action center to learn more and TAKE ACTION in support of IRV.

-- Paul
April 18, 2007

Update on Public Financing

An Update from Paul Burns, VPIRG Executive Director

I was invited to serve as the primary witness today in a Senate Government Operations committee hearing concerning a bill that would reduce the influence of money in politics by making public financing available to qualifying candidates for state Senate and House.

VPIRG supports full public financing because it substantially reduces the need for candidates to rely on private contributions to finance their campaigns, thereby:

• Strengthening public confidence in the integrity of government;
• Encouraging candidates from all walks of life to enter the political arena; and
• Freeing candidates from the burden of fundraising so they can spend their time talking to voters instead of dialing for dollars.

Committee Chairwoman Jeanette White wanted to get all the issues on the table before next January when the committee has pledged to take up the bill again when they have more time to deal with it. You can write your Representative(s) and Senator(s) to let them know you support public financing here.

Sen. Diane Snelling felt so strongly opposed to the bill that she made time to testify to the committee even though there was no possibility of the committee voting on it this year.

Longtime committee member and former Chairman, Sen. Bill Doyle also expressed his opposition. When he asked me why VPIRG believes the legislation is needed, I was glad to be able to quote the senator’s own words from a floor debate ten years ago, in which he said that campaign reform is necessary so that “there will be increased time for real debate; [and] that candidates will be able to concentrate more on issues rather than raising public money.”

Sen. Doyle’s position made sense then and it makes sense today. The only question is whether his mind has changed….

- Paul
April 11, 2007

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

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

CAD a Success Despite the Snow

What a DAY!
Despite a record snowstorm on valentines day, about 20 Vermonters turned out for the 4th annual Citizen Action Day. We had some great meetings with House Speaker Symington, Sen Pres. Peter Shumlin, and many many other representatives and Senators who weren't snowed in. Thanks to local activist Carl Etnier for brining a cmaer and letting us post pictures.

For those of you who couldn't get out of the driveway on Thursday, we've posted all our training and briefing materials online so you can get the experience of having been there.

We're also asking everyone interested to make 2 quick phone calls: to your Representative supporting Clean Safe and Affordable power, and to your Senator supporting local studies on the impact of big-box retail.

Thanks again to all those who turned out and made calls. We're off next to petition gathering around Town Meeting Day and district meetings with Senators. - drew hudson

Welcome to the new VPIRG Blog!

We're proud to share with you the new VPIRG blog! A place to catch up on the ins and outs of our issues and actions, we will be posting several times a week to let you know what we're hearing, seeing and doing to protect the public interest, both in the State House as well as in communities across teh state. We welcome your feedback as we craft this new information resource for our members and friends.