A Senate committee voted 3-2 Tuesday afternoon to exclude a measure banning corporate contributions to political candidates from a campaign finance reform redraft, despite pleas from two liberal senators and a 21-8 full Senate vote for the measure late last week.
As reported in Seven Days, the state Senate’s 21-8 vote Thursday to uphold Sen. Peter Galbraith’s amendment banning direct corporate contributions faced questions over the sincerity of individuals’ votes, given that the legislation seemed likely to die.
Sen. David Zuckerman, P-Chittenden, called the exclusion of the amendment “extremely disappointing.” He told the Senate Government Operations Committee that excluding the approved amendment from the redraft was “either a direct reflection that the votes the other day were not genuine, or that this committee is not following the will of the [full Senate] body.”
Galbraith’s amendment would ban direct donations from businesses and labor unions to political candidates, a ban that’s been in effect at the federal level since 1907. He urged the committee Tuesday to include his language in the version to be debated on the Senate floor later this week, but reiterated that he’d raise the issue even if the committee voted against him.
“This particular issue has had a tortured history,” said Galbraith, who was defeated in a similar fight in 2010. “If it isn’t in the draft, it will be re-offered. I hope the vote will be the same. I think it would also send kind of a bad signal, if a vote on an identical measure was substantially different.”
Senate Government Operations Chair Jeanette White, a fellow Windham Democrat, voted against adopting the measure in the redraft; she told her committee she doesn’t think Vermont needs the legislation.
Franklin County Republican Norm McAllister broke a tied committee vote, though at first he seemed unclear on what exactly he was voting for. Both Claire Ayer, D-Addison, and White, voted against the measure in committee, as they did on the floor last Thursday.
“Do you know what you’re voting for now?” asked White. “Not 100 percent, I can tell you that,” replied McAllister, chuckling. But later he said that the measure would be ineffective, simply because corporations would set up political action committees and use those to donate to candidates, as they do currently and are allowed to do so under federal law, as well as the proposed legislation.
“These little silos can be set up very easily, where the money can still be funneled, and less transparently, to the candidates,” said Sen. Eldred French, D-Rutland. “In some ways it’s a little bit of a feel-good amendment, in terms of in reality, what’s going to happen.”
But Paul Burns, chief of the nonpartisan advocacy at VPIRG, who has followed campaign finance closely for years, says this minor political drama is of little import. He hopes that controversy over the amendment won’t overshadow or destroy the rest of campaign finance reform, which he considers important especially given the recent arrival of Super PACs in Vermont.
“I wouldn’t read too much into it,” said Burns, whose group conceptually backs a ban on corporate donations. “Each of them expects the issue to be brought up again and fully debated. … Frankly, any senator who changes his or her vote, that will be the focus whenever it’s debated.
“I’ll be very interested to see the rationale of those individuals, who changed their vote, because very little has changed substantively in the last week, about whether banning corporate contributions is a good idea or not,” said Burns.
As it stands now, the legislation increases the frequency with which political candidates are required to disclose their campaign’s finances, from seven to 11 times in a two-year election cycle. It also features stricter and more frequent reporting requirements for Super PACs,
The Senate Government Operations Committee voted the bill out 5-0, with the full Senate expected to take it up later this week.
