vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

5.31.2007

Veto power

So now we know we have at least two vetoes the Legislature will be dealing with July 11 - energy and campaign finance.

How's that impact any prospects for overriding? Does the veto of campaign finance muddy the waters for the energy efforts?

If legislative leaders wanted extra time to marshal their forces - which clearly they did by setting a veto session date for a time far, far away - does this mean their time will be splintered by having to fight two fights?

Does it mean some legislators can prove themselves to be good, obedient Democrats on one bill while doing what their home-base wants them to do on the other? Or does it anger and galvanize the Democrats all the more?

Can all this be done in one day or will legislators be here for the rest of July?

How much do these vetoes resonate with the public? We know there's been lots of interest on both sides of the energy bill, but does Average Joe give a dang about campaign finance (of course he should, but does he?)

Those are some of the political questions swimming around in the Montpelier mud puddles today.

- Terri Hallenbeck

posted by vt.Buzz | 11:45 AM |

Comments:

The campaign finance bill, if not vetoed, will again cost Vermont taxpayers millions of legal dollars, but hey, this is what liberal lawyers are all about! As for the "soak Energy" bill, it is just another attempt by leftists communists to emulate their hero Hugo Chavez.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:10 PM, May 31, 2007

The public does not care about campaign finance reform. I don't remember any people running on the issue last year. By the sounds, its good that the governor vetoed this bill.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:19 PM, May 31, 2007

If the public were told the truth about campaign finance they'd tear down the doors and demand it. All it would take is a little education. The money in politics is atrocious and money in politics is what prevents Douglas and Democrats from doing anything at all that is meaningful because they must do what is best for campaign donors. It's bad in Vermont, it's worse in Congress.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:23 PM, May 31, 2007

Hey! I've got an idea. Between now and July 11th whenever the veto session is, why doesn't a newspaper do some articles about campaign finance. They could interview people on both sides...maybe take some polls, get some public opinion. They could do a public service kinda. Nah, I need to know what Paris Hilton is up to. Nevermind.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:58 PM, May 31, 2007

Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court blunted the important piece of reform, which is limits on EXPENDITURES--the obvious identified problem in Vermont is wealthy people flooding the system with $$, but there is nothing in this bill that addresses that. Still, it's a good bill, more than doubling the previous low limits on CONTRIBUTIONS. The bill should not have been vetoed; Vermonters clearly want some controls on $$ in politics. There is NO evidence that contribution limits disadvantage non-incumbent challengers in any way.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:22 PM, May 31, 2007

We need a new Speaker of the Vermont House of Representatives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:24 PM, May 31, 2007

If this bill isn't vetoed then a Rich Tarrant type will be at a great advantage since candidates have no limits on how much they can donate to their own campaigns. I don't know about you but I don't want wealthy people being able to buy their way into the state house.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:19 PM, May 31, 2007

Impeach Shumlin

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:37 PM, May 31, 2007

"...why doesn't a newspaper do some articles about campaign finance? They could interview people on both sides...maybe take some polls, get some public opinion. They could do a public service kinda. Nah, I need to know what Paris Hilton is up to. Nevermind."

LOL!!!! It also might require some actual legwork on a reporter's part, and we all know that just doesn't happen. It's easier to post oneself inside the State House and wait for the news to come to you. Forget Paris, now we have the TB guy to occupy our front pages.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:05 AM, June 01, 2007

A couple of good examples of why the Governor vetoed the Campaign Finance law --
1) In 2002, the National GOP donated about $600,000 to Douglas' gubernatorial campaign in the last couple of months when he overtook Racine.
2) In 2004, the National Governors Assn donated $300,000 in campaign TV ads to Douglas' Campaign.

Also, the whole Bennington State Office Building issue was resolved by moving the state workers into RENTED MOBILE OFFICE BUILDINGS rather finding downtown office space. The rental company is owned by the Fecteaus - MAJOR donors to Douglas' campaign.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:49 AM, June 01, 2007

Excuse me? Pleeeeese. Bill Sorrell's feigned surprise that the Governor would veto the campaign finance bill doesn't pass the straight face test -- but then again, neither did his $1.5 million dollar defense of the last campaign finance bill which was struck down by the US Supreme Court. While Sorrell was let off easy by the Vt media after his performance before the highest court in the land, the national media was not so kind. Sorrell's expensive little foray into tinkering with the democratic process turned Vermont into a laughing stock. Three cheers for Gov. Douglas!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:48 AM, June 01, 2007

Impeach Sorrell.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:49 AM, June 01, 2007

Sorrell's antics before the highest court in the nation earned him the #7 ranking on The Nation's Top Ten Worst Attorneys General list. Check it out at http://www.cei.org/dyn/view_expert.cfm?expert=246

Embarassing ......

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:52 AM, June 01, 2007

Kudos to Governor Douglas for saving the state from facing another campaign finance law challenge, which would be sure to cost the taxpayers millions of dollars more -- at least the Legislature should have appropriated a funding source in advance if they insist on passing laws which will wind up on the court docket.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:57 AM, June 01, 2007

How can Bill Sorrell defend another campaign finance bill when he can't even produce the cost of losing the last one? I understand the bill hasn't even been paid yet! Can anyone ask his office for some kind of accountability?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:01 PM, June 01, 2007

"I don't know about you but I don't want wealthy people being able to buy their way into the state house."

Have you paid much attention to politics recently? FYI Rich Tarrant lost, so did Skip Vallee (who spent over $100,000 in a State Senate race), so did Jack McMullen. Seems to me that VT doesn't really need campaign finance reform. Vermonters seem to be doing a pretty good job making sure that people don't just buy their way into office.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:09 PM, June 01, 2007

Not to mention Rutland County Senator Bill Carris who spent his own money to buy a seat in the Vermont Senate

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:02 PM, June 01, 2007

Sorrell's going to use the tobacco settlement to pay for his last campaign finance reform trip to the Supreme Court. And, there's plenty more where that came from. Impeach Sorrell.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:13 PM, June 01, 2007

Sorrell was blindsided by Anna Nichole

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:25 AM, June 02, 2007

We all do realize what CEI is?
Shouldn't be a concern what they think about Sorrell.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:30 AM, June 02, 2007

Kudos to Governor Douglas for saving the state from facing another campaign finance law challenge....

So the governor preempts the court system by vetoing this bill and you're cheering this maneuver? Heck, why not just abolish the Supreme Court and let conservative bloggers (and half-assed governors) have the final say instead? Actually, the Supreme Court is stacked with fascist extremists anyway (led by Scalia, whose parenting skills resulted in a drunk driving conviction against his daughter).

Despite how bad Sorrell is as AG, I shudder to think of the day we must justify court costs *before* passing legislation. The right doesn't like campaign finance reform because they are comfortable with corporations determining their destiny. Reminds me of lab rats....

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:17 AM, June 02, 2007

Would someone please ask the Attorney General how much his office (our taxpayer dollars) were spent in the preparations he did before his appearance in Washington DC before the Supreme Court. I remember his appearance on Channel 3 News -- he was so full of himself -- comparing his defense as a Triple Axle in the Olympics. What a joke. Do we have a Vermont Reporter who can find out the total amount -- or is this a cover-up?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:48 PM, June 02, 2007

Impeach Sorrell.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:04 PM, June 02, 2007

Is Scalia's "parenting skills" like Howard Dean's? Last I knew Howie's kid was arrested as the wheelman in a Burlington Country Club break in. (Long since covered up, of course).

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:59 PM, June 02, 2007

Bill Sorrell is NO LONGER interested in being the Attorney General - ask his staff!

He wants to be Governor but really hates campaigning.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:02 PM, June 02, 2007

Governor Sorrell? Now THAT's a scary thought.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:02 AM, June 03, 2007

Sorell, Shumlin or Spaulding.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:44 PM, June 03, 2007

If you think Dean had a vindictive streak as Governor, woe be to us if Sorrell ever takes that job.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:03 PM, June 03, 2007

Sorrell will never be elected governor - he hates campaigning. The only reason Sorrell is in the AG's office is that Howard Dean had a vacancy to fill when he appointed then-AG Jeff Amestoy as Chief Justice of the VT Supreme Court. Sorrell was Dean's Secretary of Administration and Finance and he appointed him AG to replace Amestoy. Sorrell's mother, Esther Sorrell, was a long-time legislator from Burlington and a mentor to Dean in Ho-Ho's early years in Burlington and legislative politics. Sorrell's risen as far as he's going to.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:23 PM, June 04, 2007

I hope you are right or we are all in for it!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:53 PM, June 04, 2007

Vetoing the bill isn't necessarily going to save the state a lawsuit. Someone can just as easily challenge the concept of "revival" and the tatters of what was left by the U.S. Supreme Court. Face it, there will always be people who don't believe in any regulation of campaign, and as long as they're out there a possible lawsuit looms...

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:14 PM, June 05, 2007

Its amazing how some people work so hard to get elected and some seem to just slide in.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:55 PM, June 05, 2007

Sorrell, Shumlin or Markowitz for
Governor? We need a new, fresh voice.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:17 PM, June 07, 2007

Neither Sorrell nor Shumlin are "fresh voices." Nor are they trustworthy. In a pinch I'd take Symington. I don't like her anti-business politics, but at least she's pretty honest.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:59 PM, June 07, 2007

I would not take any of those choices.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:22 PM, June 09, 2007

No way.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:00 PM, June 10, 2007