Editor’s note: This op-ed is by state Sen. Joe Benning, a Republican who represents the Caledonia-Orange District in the Vermont Senate.
“Money in politics.” Uttering that phrase causes a reaction akin to fingernails being scraped across a chalkboard. I suspect that is the reason the Vermont Senate felt the need to do “something” recently when it passed S.82, a bill labeled “campaign finance reform.” Nobody felt good about it. Even the governor, perhaps embarrassed, quietly signed the bill into law with no fanfare.
I voted against it with no hesitation. It contained two provisions (on time and online registration) that I really liked. I wish it did more for transparency. But by doubling the contributions available to statewide candidates and restricting the contributions of House and Senate candidates, I believe we just created an incumbent protection plan. More importantly, it violated the spirit of what Vermont is supposed to be about.
It’s probably because my Senate seat is directly over the hall where the portrait of Matthew Lyons hangs in our Statehouse. Maybe you’ve never had the benefit of a Vermont history class that taught about Lyons. From time to time it is quite beneficial to remember what Vermont is really famous for, and I’m not talking about ice cream or quality beer.
I suspect Lyons would be very disappointed to learn his descendants now clamor for restricting speech because they’ve grown intolerant.
Lyons was one of Vermont’s first congressmen. He served during the administration of then President John Adams. Adams had no toleration for those who dissed the powers that be, which naturally included his own political party. He promoted the Alien & Sedition Acts, making it a crime to speak against the regime. Lyons had no toleration for those who had no toleration. He created quite a scene, through speeches and publications, challenging the acts for their suppression of politically opposing viewpoints. He told Adams exactly what he thought of him for imposing these acts.
Lyons was charged, convicted and thrown into jail for having the audacity to speak out against his government. Vermonters reacted like Vermonters should. They re-elected him as he sat in jail. When he was released, it is said that the number of Vermonters who showed up to escort him back home was miles long.
So what does all that have to do with campaign finance reform? I suspect Lyons would be very disappointed to learn his descendants now clamor for restricting speech because they’ve grown intolerant. Yes, you read that right. We’ve become intolerant, not of speech we like to hear, but of speech from those we disagree with. “Campaign finance reform” has become a euphemism for curtailing the financial contributions of those creating speech we don’t like to hear. The classic example of that was the 2012 election, where one wealthy individual spent a whole lot of money supporting one particular candidate. (Never mind that that candidate didn’t win, which by itself should say something about our fear of money in politics).
Unfortunately, it costs money to get your message to voters. But when people pool their resources as corporations or PACs to get their message to the voters, we get so intolerant we sound downright angry. We’re now ready to prosecute people for spending too much money promoting their speech. John Adams may be someplace smiling, but I get this eerie feeling walking by Matthew Lyons’ portrait every day.
