Despite much political drama and grandstanding, campaign finance reform failed this year, which means tighter regulations on money in politics won’t be imposed until at least the 2016 elections.
House Republican leadership refused to suspend legislative rules, which could have enabled passage in the short time left in this session. A conference committee to resolve differences between House and Senate versions of the reform only met formally for the first time Monday.
Just as important, the chambers failed to reach agreement on two major policy fronts. The House voted strongly, 96-49, to cap donations to Super PACs at $5,000, breaking with a recent legal guidance from the attorney general that allowed unlimited contributions to Super PACs.
Several senators felt uncomfortable with that cap, which would have likely provoked a legal challenge from conservative campaign finance lawyers. If the state lost that challenge, taxpayers would be liable for the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees.
The House also voted for more liberal donation limits, allowing political parties to receive unlimited donations and edging up donation caps for statewide candidates. The Senate backed more restrictive caps, including an $85,000 limit on party donations and a ban on any one person donating more than $25,000, in total, per election cycle, to several candidates.
Sen. Jeanette White, D-Windham, and Rep. Debbie Evans, D-Essex Junction, two key conference committee members, expressed disappointment at the outcome, but said they would continue to meet in the fall, with the aim of reaching agreement by January.
“I would love to have passed it this year, but I think it’s more important to have a bill that does what we want it to do,” said White, who chairs the Senate Government Operations Committee.
If legislation is passed in early 2014, White said, at least some provisions could take effect in time for the 2014 elections. More frequent reporting requirements for candidates, PACs, and parties could apply to the 2014 election cycle, but donation limits wouldn’t, she said.
“Time was of the essence,” Evans said. “We were pushing (Super PAC) caps forward, and the Senate could not come to an agreement. That was the main sticking point.
“Obviously I’m disappointed,” she said. “A lot of people put a lot of work into it, and it’s a good piece of legislation. It’s what our constituents want and what’s needed.” She said it would increase political transparency and highlight “how money comes in, who’s giving money and how it’s being spent.”
House Republican Minority Leader Don Turner, R-Milton, argued that with little time left, other legislative topics took priority, especially since there is still some controversy and disagreement over campaign finance provisions.
“Even our committee members agree, our caucus members agree: we’re not going to suspend the rules on campaign finance,” Turner said. “It’s going to wait until next year. It’s not important enough this session, not with what’s in it today.”
Earlier this session House Republicans touted the importance of campaign finance reform. Several House Republicans however, criticized House legislation recently for approving legally risky restrictions on Super PACs.
Sen. Anthony Pollina, D-Washington, a Senate Government Operations Committee member, said the absence of meaningful reform this session is disappointing but not surprising.
He said he sensed that House, Senate and administration leadership attached little importance to the legislation. Campaign finance reform has not become law since 1997, when Pollina led the nonpartisan advocacy group VPIRG, which tracks campaign finance reform. Pollina helped craft that bill, which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional and unduly restrictive in 2006. The loss of that case cost Vermont taxpayers $1.6 million.
Later attempts at reform in 2007 and 2008 were twice vetoed by then-Gov. Jim Douglas.
“This is not the first time, this has been going on for years,” said Pollina, who called the repeated failures a constant source of frustration. “For some reason, people in this building can’t seem to reach an agreement on how they should behave when it comes to their own campaigns.
“We’re comfortable telling other people what to do, and we’re willing to pass laws, but when it affects the people in this building, we can’t reach agreement,” he said.
“People can’t seem to be break out of this cycle of thinking that the way to combat big money is to bring in bigger money,” said Pollina, referring to lobbying by political parties, who want to remain free of donation caps, to better battle Super PACs. “I really don’t get it. Why is it so hard?”
“People in power don’t necessarily want to change the rules,” he continued. “From the start, my gut told me that the leadership really didn’t want to see these changes.”
VPIRG’s current executive director, Paul Burns, said: “It turns out that campaign finance reform is just about the toughest kind of legislation to pass, because you’re asking politicians to change the rules of the game that got them elected.”
Burns said calls for reform came from many quarters following the 2012 elections, which featured homegrown Vermont Super PACs for the first time.
Rhetoric about reform is easy enough to repeat, said Burns. “But the proof is in what gets passed and what doesn’t, year after year. The Legislature’s failure to reduce the influence of money in politics and to expose more clearly who’s giving money to whom is one of the great missed opportunities of the legislative session.”
