One Vermont political advocacy group is challenging the legality of another group’s activities in a dispute that’s part of a larger battle over Vermont’s campaign finance laws.
Sharon Toborg, treasurer of the pro-life group Vermont Right to Life Committee, filed a complaint with the Attorney General’s Office challenging the financial activities of Vermont Leads, a group that supports single-payer health care, and Vermont Leads Political Action Committee, its independent expenditure PAC (IE PAC).
Toborg alleges that Vermont Leads PAC’s campaign finance reports are incomplete, and that transfers of money between the two entities violate state law.
In 2012, Vermont Leads donated $60,000 to Vermont Leads PAC and later that year, Vermont Leads PAC transferred $27,989 back to Vermont Leads, according to Toborg’s complaint.
Federal case law has upheld the right of independent expenditure PACs, often called super PACs, to influence elections as long as their activities are not coordinated with a candidate or political party. Traditional PACs can directly support candidates and parties, but must abide by limits on contributions and must disclose their donors.
In order to keep pace with emergent federal case law, Act 90, Vermont’s latest campaign finance law, defines independent expenditure PACs for the first time and defines what type of election activities they can conduct.
Toborg argues that the statute is vague. She said she brought the complaint to make sure the law is clear and is applied fairly across the political spectrum.
The Attorney General’s Office has received Toborg’s complaint and is gathering information from Vermont Leads before deciding whether to take enforcement action, Assistant Attorney General Bill Griffin said.
Current statute dictates that to be an independent expenditure PAC, a group must not be “closely related” to a political party, regular PAC or candidate.
Toborg wants to know how the attorney general will parse the legislative intent behind that wording.
Assistant Attorney General Eve Jacobs-Carnahan said she had not seen Toborg’s complaint, but that an investigation would likely hinge on communications between Vermont Leads and Vermont Leads PAC, and the two groups’ governance structure, activities and spending.
The constitutional battle
The Vermont Right to Life Committee has its own affiliated independent expenditure PAC, the Vermont Right to Life Committee Fund for Independent Political Expenditures.
The group brought a pre-enforcement suit against Vermont alleging that the state’s campaign finance laws were unconstitutional because they imposed limits on contributions to independent expenditure PACs. The suit also challenged the reporting and disclosure requirements for independent expenditure PACs.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for Vermont in July, saying the Vermont Right to Life Committee Fund for Independent Political Expenditures did not meet the standard for an independent expenditure PAC in existing case law, so the enforcement question is moot.
The group has 90 days to appeal the decision; that time will expire at the end of the month.
Jim Bopp, an attorney for Vermont Right to Life and a prominent conservative lawyer who has brought many legal challenges to state and federal campaign finance laws, recently told VTDigger the case was “ripe” for consideration by the Supreme Court.
The legislative intent section of Act 90 warns that if independent expenditure PACs are allowed to receive unlimited contributions, they may “eclipse political parties” and that would be “detrimental” to the electoral process.
The statute notes that the legal landscape on the constitutionality of unlimited contributions to independent expenditure PACs is “uncertain,” and therefore the state will only impose contribution limits if the courts decide that such limits are constitutional.
The Second Circuit ruled narrowly that the Vermont Right to Life Committee Fund for Independent Political Expenditures doesn’t meet the definition of an IE PAC. Its decision left the constitutional issue, and the fate of Vermont’s law, unresolved.
