burlingtonfreepress.com

Sponsored by:

vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

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


2.15.2010

 

Vermont's answer to the U.S. Supreme Court

Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, wants the Vermont Legislature to respond to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that declares there are no limits on campaign spending by corporations and unions as long as they aren’t coordinating their efforts with candidates.

“This latest Supreme Court decision is one of the worst decisions for election and democracy in the history of the court,” Shumlin said. “The question is, what can Vermont do to mitigate as much as possible the buying of elections by corporations.”

Shumlin, Sen. Dick Sears, D-Bennington, and Sen. Jeanette White, D-Windham, have a bill in the works that would give the public real-time information about organizations, corporations and unions that spend money on campaign ads. The Senate Judiciary Committee began working on the bill last week and takes it up again Thursday.

The early draft proposes to increase penalties for campaign finance violations and set requirements to help the public identify who is paying for independent campaign communications.

The sponsors also want the state to set up a Web site where the public could review the disclosure information the bill would require.

Sears, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said he’s trying to make sure the bill is as lawsuit-proof as possible. Campaign finance legislation has a tendency to end up in court.

The Judiciary Committee worked on a draft last week with advice from Cheryl Hanna, Vermont law school professor with expertise in constitutional law and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Hanna noted that the draft proposed raising the fine for campaign violations from $1,000 to $100,000 and the jail time from six months to five years. “Do any other states have penalties that are so high?”

Penalties or other provisions that are extreme could draw unwanted court attention, Hanna suggested. She noted other potential pitfalls in the first draft — giving corporations or union just 12 hours to notify candidates when expenditures of more than $200 are made.

“An argument could be made that $200 is too low,” Hanna said. “And 24 hours seems to be the standard of the day,” she said of notification requirements.

The bill proposed that independently financed radio ads would need to identify who paid for them every five seconds.

“I suspect the court would look skeptically on the requirement of every five seconds,” Hanna said.

“So would the listeners,” said Sen. Kevin Mullin, R-Rutland.

After the Senate Judiciary Committee vets the bill, Senate Government Operations gets it. Shumlin said he wants a full Senate vote by March 12.

— Nancy Remsen

Labels: , , ,


Comments:
Someone should point out to Sen. Shumlin that Vermont statutes have allowed, for decades, not only independent expenditures by corporations, but direct contributions to campaigns by corporations. So, why does a federal decision regarding federal elections that doesn't affect existing state law warrant such feigned shock and disgust? Manufactured "outrage."
 
It does affect our elections. There used to be limits on corporate contributions and now there are none.
 
Shumlin has got the election all locked up!!
 
No. For decades, Vermont law has allowed not only independent corporate expenditures (the kind at issue in the Citizens United case), but also direct contributions by corporations. The limits at issue in the Citizens United case related to federal elections, and perhaps to other states with similar limitations. Since Sen. Shumlin can only propose Vermont legislation, he is responding to a case that did not affect Vermont elections law. This is grandstanding, plain and simple. Where was his "outrage" before, since the law hasn't changed?
 
No. For decades, Vermont law has allowed not only independent corporate expenditures (the kind at issue in the Citizens United case), but also direct contributions by corporations. The limits at issue in the Citizens United case related to federal elections, and perhaps to other states with similar limitations. Since Sen. Shumlin can only propose Vermont legislation, he is responding to a case that did not affect Vermont elections law. This is grandstanding, plain and simple. Where was his "outrage" before, since the law hasn't changed?
 
If you think this US Supreme Court ruling will not effect Vt - you are sadly very naive.

If the VY issue is still on the table, you can be sure VY will spendhundreds of thousands of dollars campaigning for VY supportive candidates. Just look at how much they spent all of last year on full page ads in all the newspapers in VT.
 
Yup, and Right to Life has sued VT because they want to be able to run attack ads without disclosing who is funding them.
 
The disclosure issue is different -- the Citizens United case upheld federal disclosure requirements. All I'm saying is that, before the Citizens United decision, VY could have spent as much as it wanted in independent expenditures under Vermont law. So what is different now? Nothing, except some political hay to be made.
 
Shumlin will use anything to his advantage
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   June 2007   July 2007   August 2007   September 2007   October 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   March 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008   December 2008   January 2009   February 2009   March 2009   April 2009   May 2009   June 2009   July 2009   August 2009   September 2009   October 2009   November 2009   December 2009   January 2010   February 2010   March 2010   April 2010