This article was updated at 4:58 p.m.
[O]rganizations spent $3.8 million on lobbying activities in the first quarter of 2015, according to reports filed with the Secretary of State’s Office. That includes $3.1 million in lobbyist compensation, $718,829 in lobbying expenditures and $18,476 in gifts.
Four top Montpelier lobbying firms received $1.15 million, or 37 percent of all lobbyist compensation during that period. Those firms were KSE Partners, LLP, $340,757; Necrason Group, $318,818; MMR, LLC, $275,705; and Downs Rachlin Martin, PLLC, $218,205.
The American Beverage Association spent the most of any organization on lobbying activities in Vermont during the first three months of 2015. The industry trade group spent more than $500,000 since January to block a tax on sweetened beverages, a version of which passed two House committees but has since lost traction.
A sales tax on soft drinks is currently part of tax packages under consideration in the House, but it’s not the excise tax on sweetened beverages that public health groups have advocated for.
The American Beverage Association spent $16,000 on three lobbyists, and $513,137 on advertising, telemarketing and other expenditures — or 71 percent of the total lobbying expenditures. A spokesman for the association could not immediately be reached for comment Monday.
In contrast, Alliance for a Healthier Vermont, a nonprofit coalition that supports the beverage tax, which is led by the state chapters of the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society, spent a combined $24,310 on lobbying activities. The two groups also spent in the range of $20,000 on educational advertising that does not need to be reported as lobbying, according to the alliance.
The beverage association’s spending in Vermont is “consistent with the national pattern of this industry, which The New York Times reported spent more than $100 million last year to defeat public health tax proposals like this one across the country,” said Anthony Iarrapino, executive director of the Alliance for a Healthier Vermont.
“Clearly this industry thinks our tax would work as intended to reduce consumption of their products, which have been linked to the obesity epidemic and a range of other chronic illnesses,” he added.
The ABA spent a similar sum, $574,472, in the first three months of 2013 when lawmakers and advocates pressed the sweetened beverage excise tax last biennium.
William Dermody Jr., vice president of policy for the ABA, said his organization spent money in Vermont this year “to do all we could to ensure the public knew about this tax and the negative impact it would have.”
The ABA opposes the beverage tax because it would hurt their “customers and consumers,” referring to retailers and soda drinkers, he said. That in turn hurts ABA member companies, he added.
“Soda taxes are not a popular idea anywhere in the United States,” Dermody said, adding that in the past several years voters and lawmakers have consistently rejected “soda tax ideas,” with the exception of Berkeley, California.
“You see polling, people routinely oppose soda taxes by a sizable majority,” Dermody said.
However, a VTDigger/Castleton poll this year showed 57 percent of respondents from Vermont supported the tax, provided the revenue went toward low-income health care programs.
The ABA’s lobbying campaign “gives voice” to a coalition in Vermont that opposes the excise tax, Dermody said. That coalition includes 200 businesses, and a petition they circulated received more than 18,000 signatures.
“That’s a lot for Vermont, I think,” he said.
Tale of two gun lobbies
Two groups spent $129,346 this year to lobby in favor of tighter gun laws. Those efforts aided the passage of S.141, which Gov. Peter Shumlin said he would sign, despite saying he opposed any new gun laws earlier this year.
Everytown for Gun Safety, which is backed by billionaire gun control advocate Michael Bloomberg, spent $77,567, mostly on advertising. The group released a report in January called “Where Vermont Criminals Shop for Guns,” which made a case for universal background checks.
Gun Sense Vermont, a Brattleboro-based gun control group, spent $51,779, mostly on a team of lobbyists from the Necrason group. The lobbying firm received $32,200, Gun Sense Vermont director Ann Braden received $9,231 and the group spent $10,348 on advertising and other lobbying expenses.
Gun rights groups spent less on lobbying, but were able to convince lawmakers to abandon the push for universal background checks. The legislation Shumlin said he will sign would make it a two-year misdemeanor for people with certain violent or drug-related offenses to possess a gun, and requires some people with mental illness to be reported to a federal background check database.
The Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, the local affiliate of the National Rifle Association, spent $15,000 on lobbyist Tim Meehan, and the NRA reported spending $12,071 on its in-house lobbyist, Derin Goens.
Other lobbyist disclosure highlights
The Vermont Dental Society spent $108,950 to oppose legislation that would allow the licensure of mid-level dental providers. That includes $30,950 in lobbyist compensation and $78,000 on advertising and other lobbying expenses.
Voices for Vermont Children, which leads the Vermont Oral Health for All coalition advocating to license the new provider class, spent $11,940 to compensate its in-house lobbying team for its efforts the dental bill and other legislative initiatives.
Other notable lobbying expenditures include the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, which spent $95,070 on its team of lobbyists, and $32,010 on telemarketing and other lobbying expenses. VPIRG is active on a range environmental, health and consumer protection issues.
The Vermont Association of Hospitals and Hospital Systems spent $101,376 on in-house and external lobbyists.
Vermont-NEA spent $31,767 on lobbying during what an active session for the teachers union, which has successfully opposed a ban on teacher strikes and is active on education finance reforms currently under consideration.
Lobbyist employers are required to disclose their spending three time a year, according to the secretary of state:
• April 25 for the period of Jan. 1 through March 31;
• July 25 for the period of April 1 through June 30;
• Jan. 25 for the period of July 1 through Dec. 31.
