Super PACs will be back

Editor’s note: Anne Galloway contributed to this report.

Though the debut of super PACs has had mixed results, stirring more ire than votes, politicos say there’s no doubt that big money will be back.

The only question is how the next set of super PACS will use limitless funding to affect Vermont’s 2014 election.

This time around Burlington millionaire backer Lenore Broughton and Vermonters First threw a big wad of cash at conservative candidates (nearly $1 million), and the super PAC the Washington, D.C.-based Committee for Fairness and Justice likely won the primary election for Vermont Attorney General Bill Sorrell with $185,000 worth of advertising.

Politicos say Vermonters can expect to see more groups with more money jump into the fray sooner rather than later.

Darcie Johnston, who lately ran GOP gubernatorial candidate Randy Brock’s campaign, says Broughton will be back in the next election cycle. And Johnston herself is thinking about starting a super PAC for Vermonters for Health Care Freedom, an anti-single-payer 501(c)(4), as soon as possible.

Though prominent Democrats asked Vermonters to vote against the super PACs in a series of radio ads, the Vermont Democratic Party didn’t go so far as to chastise its own when it came to former Gov. Howard Dean’s intimate involvement in the Vermont attorney general’s Democratic primary. (He campaigned with Sorrell and appeared in CFJ ads.) Dean, after all, is the grand old man of the party and recently gave $30,000 to the VDP through his political action committee, Democracy for America.

Kevin Ellis, a principle with the lobbying and communications firm KSE Partners, says Democrats in Vermont, however, in the next election cycle likely won’t give to super PACs because they think they are too dirty.

“The future is very much the same as this past election cycle. It isn’t going to scare Lenore Broughton away.” ~ Todd Bailey

That may change, though, as the money war accelerates, and outside groups, such as Vermonters First and Vermont Leads, a pro-single payer health care 501(c)(4) funded by the Service Employees International Union, reappear on the scene.

Todd Bailey, who works for Ellis and founded Priorities PAC, which raised $25,000 for Democrats this election cycle, says he expects super PACs to continue to dominate Vermont campaigns.

“The future is very much the same as this past election cycle,” Bailey said. “It isn’t going to scare Lenore Broughton away. In part that will be the case because it was a learning experience for everyone involved.”

Bailey says this election cycle was a “test case,” in which Democrats were in wait-and-see mode. “Their preference is is not to rely on them,” he said. “If they can get through an election cycle without them, they will.”

Secretary of State Jim Condos, a Democrat, says the impact of super PACs on the 2012 elections may prod the Legislature to pass stricter disclosure requirements.

Though super PACs made the biggest splash in the statewide races for treasurer and attorney general, they were also involved in local races and that may scare some lawmakers, Condos said.

“Now that super PACS went after the Legislature, they are going to be more in tune with what needs to be done,” the secretary said.

Super PAC backfire?

Vermonters First was dealt resounding defeats in just about every race it had a hand in.  It spent nearly $200,000 on Wendy Wilton, the Republican candidate for state treasurer — she lost to Democrat Beth Pearce by 10 percentage points — and it spent almost another $200,000 to elected Republicans to state House and Senate seats but didn’t manage to dent Democratic control of the Legislature.

Eric Davis, pundit and professor emeritus of political science at Middlebury College, says Vermonters First misread the zeitgeist of the electorate. The super PAC didn’t target its efforts, Davis said. Instead Vermonters First sent indiscriminate mailings and hit potential voters with robo-calls instead of calls from real people.

“It could have been that spending even backfired and helped Beth Pearce.” ~Eric Davis

Davis said it’s possible that Vermonters First’s broadcast ads, calls and mailings actually had a counterproductive effect on the state treasurer’s race.

“It could have been that spending even backfired and helped Beth Pearce,” Davis said.

Some high profile Democrats cast the election as a referendum on super PACS. In his endorsement of Beth Pearce, Dean, who played a starring role in a super PAC ad for Sorrell, said, “This race wouldn’t be a race, without the hundreds of thousands of dollars that a right-wing activist is pouring into the race. This is really a referendum on whether you want big money, in terms of these super PACS, to play a role in Vermont politics.”

Davis said the ad run by the Committee for Justice and Fairness, the D.C.-based super PAC affiliated with the Democratic Attorneys General Association, that featured Dean and promoted Sorrell was the most telling display of super PAC clout. Super PACS, Davis said, may prove to be more effective in primary races where voter turnout tends to be lower.

PACS and parties

Some Democrats are chalking up their near-ubiquitous victory as a tribute to their “grassroots” approach. In a statement released after the election, Shap Smith said, “Vermonters came out and proved that super PACs cannot buy elections in our state.”

Jake Perkinson, chair of the Vermont Democratic Party, is more cautious about the specter of super PACS.

“I would be very hesitant to say we defeated the super PACS,” Perkinson said. “We did defeat them, but we didn’t defeat the danger of the super PACS.”

Though Pearce triumphed over Wilton in the treasurer’s race, Perkinson said: “They [Vermonters First] nevertheless had an impact in skewing the public discourse by putting so much information out there on her [Wilton’s] side.”

Perkinson said he is concerned that in future the Vermont Democratic Party will have to siphon more resources toward neutralizing the influence of super PACs. “We don’t have the money to spend … hopefully the law will change sooner rather than later,” he said.

Jack Lindley, chair of the Vermont Republican Party, had mixed feelings about the role of super PACS in Vermont and the particular impact that Vermonters First may have had on this election.

“Did it help the Republican Party?” Lindley asked. “I think on the margins, it probably helped get a good strong vote out and so that’s good. When we have heavy voting that’s good for any party … Is it good Vermont? I would have grave questions about whether it’s good for Vermont.”

A proposal for more disclosure

Secretary of State Jim Condos says Vermonters First’s involvement in Vermont’s House and Senate races may galvanize the Legislature to implement stricture disclosure requirements for super PACS.

Condos said he spoke with several lawmakers after the election who “seem very receptive,” but he declined to provide names.

Under the current system, campaign finance reports are filed on a monthly basis beginning in July during an election year. During the off year, a single report is due in July.

Secretary of State Jim Condos. VTD/Josh Larkin

Secretary of State Jim Condos. VTD/Josh Larkin

Expenditures and contributions made between Oct. 15 and Election Day aren’t disclosed until after the election.

Campaign finance reports must be hand-delivered and then scanned before they are uploaded to the Secretary of State’s website.

Super PACS are subject to the same reporting requirements as candidates, parties and PACs, but they do not have campaign contribution limits. Super PACS are also able to sidestep disclosure requirements by receiving donations through 501(c)(4) nonprofit entities, which aren’t required to identify their contributors, or through shell corporations that are also set up to obscure donors.

Condos outlined several “concepts” he plans to propose to the Legislature. He wants to replace the current system with an electronic campaign finance and lobbying disclosure database in which candidates, parties, and PACS can file online through password-protected accounts.

He also proposes to increase the frequency of the filing schedule to require quarterly reports during off years with weekly or biweekly reports beginning after the primary during an election year. Condos also said he may suggest that the Legislature require super PACs to disclose, within 24 hours, any contribution exceeding $2,000 and made within 30 days of the election.

A disclosure bill would originate in the House Government Operations Committee; if there are potential constitutional conflicts, it would also be brought to the Judiciary Committee, and the Appropriations Committee would need to approve funding for the electronic campaign finance system.

Condos said his ideas for reform aren’t new but the advent of super PACS may finally be the impetus that motivates lawmakers to take action.

“I’ve been advocating that for more than two years but the Legislature didn’t give me any money to do it.” Now, he said, “they know that the landscape has changed in Vermont.”

Condos said the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that disclosure is the only tool states can use to mitigate the impact of super PAC spending.

“Does disclosure solve the problem? No, but at least it shines a light on it.”

Though the U.S. Supreme Court left this door open for legislative action, Condos said, “We’ll probably get sued on it.”

Follow Alicia on Twitter @aefreese

Comments

  1. Christian Noll :

    Hey Alicia or Anne,

    The caption to the Jim Condos photos is old.

    You should nix the caption as it dates your article.

    FYI

  2. walter carpenter :

    I agree with the secretary of state. We need to disclose who, when, how much and why.

    • Jim Christiansen :

      We need full disclosure of every penny from every source to be made available in electronic form on a Stare election web site. This data can easily be collected when campaign funds are received. If a campaign is not able to report their funds in an accurate and timely manner, their candidate is not qualified to hold office.

      The rule should be, “If it isn’t on a disclosure sheet, it can’t be spent”.

      And while we’re at it, lets do away with campaign war chests. All unspent funds should be turned over to the LIHEAP program every election cycle.

    • Patricia Crocker :

      Then we need groups like VPIRG to disclose who, when, how much and why. People would be a little more willing to discuss the money in politics when every card is on the table, including the bias of the media.

  3. Bob Stannard :

    As the Treasurer for Priorities PAC we insisted on reporting our donors within 72 hours.

    We welcome any restrictions that can legally be imposed. We would further recommend initiatives that would lead to the ultimate goal of eliminating Super PACs

  4. James Leas :

    The article Super PACS Will be Back on VTDigger today by Alicia Freeze notes that “the D.C.-based Committee for Fairness and Justice likely won the primary election for Vermont Attorney General Bill Sorrell with $185,000 worth of advertising.”

    According to an article on Seven Days by Andy Bromage on October 24, the credit for buying the election for Bill Sorrell belongs to huge corporations who actually put up the money the D.C. based committee spent on the ads that likely won the primary election for Sorrell:

    Andy Bromage’s article points out that the D.C.-based super PAC got its funding “solely from the Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA) — in two payments of $100,000 each — and went almost entirely to support Sorrell’s bid for an eighth term in office.” Also, according to the Andy Bromage article, “DAGA’s top contributors for the 2012 election cycle include Walmart, the Teamsters, Pfizer, Google and Monsanto. The No. 2 donor to DAGA in 2012 was Citigroup Global Markets —the same “Citi” that the super PAC’s pro-Sorrell ad cast as a Wall Street villain.”

    Of course, allowing elections to be privatized so they can be bought and sold by out of state corporations opens a huge new arena for corporations: the return on money a corporation invests in an election can be enormous. Thus, corporate executives are likely fulfilling their duty to invest to maximize corporate profits when they invest in elections.

    However, state legislatures have a duty to protect election integrity. As part of the disclosure requirement that a state legislature interested in protecting election integrity may consider implementing, not just the Super PAC itself should be required to disclose the source of its funding. In addition, the legislature may consider requiring the corporations who are the ultimate source of funding to provide a chief executive to testify under oath and subject to questioning as to specifically how the contribution is expected to provide a positive return for stockholders. The voters have a very strong interest in knowing what discretionary decision by the office holder, what policy or law by the legislature, or what contract from the administration, does the corporation wish to encourage in return for its political investment. As part of its disclosure requirement the legislature should provide a full process for the voters to get all the information.

  5. James Leas :

    During the primary campaign Bill Sorrell announced that he would not enforce Vermont election law. He made this announcement even before even any suit was filed against Vermont.

    But Bill Sorrell had an excellent opportunity to defend Vermont’s election finance law that restricted expenditures in elections. He could have mounted a defense of Vermont law in a way that could not have been used in the federal Citizens United case itself. This because of a constitutional amendment already adopted and ratified that empowers states.

    The very same five justices who decided Citizens United are strong supporters of, and have expanded state rights under the 11th amendment, particularly in cases where the fundamental legitimacy of state government is at risk from the suit.

    Few things put legitimacy of state government more at risk than privatizing elections and making them subject to the highest bidder.

    Our Attorney General decided that he would not defend Vermont’s election law and that he would not use any case filed against Vermont (or against him as Attorney General) to force those five US Supreme Court Justices to choose which is more important to them–their beloved 11th amendment state sovereign immunity or forcing unlimited corporate election spending on states. A switch by only one of the five justices to sustain 11th amendment sovereign immunity would have been enough for a historic victory for Vermont.

    That discretionary decision by Bill Sorrell to cave in without any fight at all opened the floodgates to corporate expenditures in a Vermont primary election in which his own office was hotly contested. And that decision turned out to be the key to his obtaining the massive corporate funding–hiding under the D.C. based committee and the Democratic Attorneys General Association–used for him to win the primary election against T.J. Donovan.

    Of course, a future Vermont Attorney General or an AG in another state could resist such financial temptation and assert the constitutional amendment we already have to defend a state’s law protecting election integrity. What is needed is sufficient public pressure to require an AG to resist the temptation.
    That discretionary decision by Bill Sorrell to cave in without any fight at all opened the floodgates to corporate expenditures in a Vermont primary election in which his own office was hotly contested. And that decision turned out to be the key to his obtaining the massive corporate funding–hiding under the D.C. based committee and the Democratic Attorneys General Association–used for him to win the primary election against T.J. Donovan.

    Of course a future Vermont Attorney General or an AG in another state could resist such temptation and assert the constitutional amendment we already have to defend a state’s election integrity.

  6. “That may change, though, as the money war accelerates, and outside groups, such as Vermonters First and Vermont Leads, a pro-single payer health care 501c4 funded by the Service Employees International Union, reappear on the scene.”

    Am I missing something here? Vermont Leads is clearly supported by an outside group in the form of SEIU, but how on earth does Vermonters First fit that description? It may have spend a lot of money, most of it coming from one person, but I have seen absolutely no evidence pointing to a significant funding presence from an outside group behind Vermonters First. If we are going to criticize the players involved, lets at least try and get that criticism accurate.

  7. Ron Pulcer :

    The Super PAC wanton spending is the antithesis of being “fiscally conservative”:

    Throwing lots of money at electoral races, in the thousands and millions, by Super PACs in Vermont and across the U.S., and then not having much to show for that “investment” as far as electoral wins.

    Like the VT Lottery says, “play responsibly”.

    As a voter, IMHO, not only has the Republican Party lost important electoral races in Vermont and across the nation, but they have shown that their claim to being “fiscally conservative” is a largely a false claim.

    VTDigger, I would be interested in learning how the Super PAC mega-funders characterized their Super PAC donations. Do the donations go through business entities, such that they are treated as “business expenses”, thereby reducing profit and lowering TAXES?

Comments

*

Comment policy Privacy policy
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Super PACs will be back"