At a Campaign for Vermont forum in Bradford last week organizer and moderator Bruce Lisman gave out cookies to those attending and made his pitch. The press release said the “ideas campaign” panel of experts concluded that greater prosperity in Bradford and the rest of Vermont will require better access to health care, food, workforce development, and education. That is all true, but so basic one wonders why they didn’t add that good is better than evil.  

But in addition to baking cookies Lisman has tried his hand at sleuthing out “good ideas” on the workforce development issue. He looked south and found that Louisiana has a state development/jobs program that he almost demands Vermont emulate.

“I think it can happen in Vermont,” Lisman said. Warning of Vermont’s declining national reputation for workforce quality, he said, “It has to. It’s a question of people saying, ‘we’re not going to take it anymore.’”

It is unclear what evidence he bases Vermont’s “declining national reputation” on or the anger he predicts may fuel it.

The programs that Lisman says have transformed Louisiana, once renowned for incompetence in workforce development

from worst to first in the nation in part because of a private sector initiative in which corporate executives contributed funds to an independent, statewide workforce development program, and received training themselves on cutting-edge development techniques.

The problem may be Louisiana has been given a D+ rating for its program.  

Louisiana Governor Jindal calls the programs his state’s most powerful tools for business development and Lisman would certainly agree. But the program gets a  D+ rating from the non-partisan research center  Good Jobs First. They studied five programs in Louisiana that cost taxpayers $1.1 billion annually and found that

the costliest tax credits, exemptions, and cash rebates don’t include the kind of strict performance standards needed to ensure that quality jobs are being created for the money that taxpayers spend. Louisiana Economic Development is the state agency responsible for overseeing and administering economic development subsidies.

• Three of five programs do not prohibit job-shifting. States receive zero economic benefit from subsidizing companies that create jobs by simply moving from one part of the state to another.

• Four of five programs lack wage requirements. Simply creating jobs will not lead to a stronger economy. Those jobs must pay enough to support a decent standard of living, and create economic ripple effects. Without wage requirements, the subsidies can result in jobs that pay workers so little that they must rely on social safety-net programs such as Medicaid, food stamps, or the Earned Income Tax Credit.

• Four of five programs have no health-care requirement. Although most people get health insurance from their employer, that percentage is declining. Subsidized workers unable to afford their own health insurance may fall onto the rolls of Medicaid, thus negating any positive economic benefits.

The report goes on to give part of the Louisiana effort good grades for job creation and says that could be a model to base needed reforms on. However, fewer than half of the programs require job creation at subsidized companies and the programs’ standards are quite low. Subsidized jobs with benefits and wages so low that workers need Medicaid and food stamps should not be classified as economic development they say.

Hope the cookies Lisman gave away at forum were good because his “good idea” from Louisiana is only half-baked.  

(I didn’t say the title was flippancy-free.)

This afternoon, Lucas Snelling of Energize Vermont presented his group’s plan for a future Vermont powered (predominantly) by renewable sources — without any increase in wind power. EV supports the wind moratorium bill pending in the legislature; but beyond that, EV would clearly like to see no more utility-scale wind projects in Vermont, ever.

As with this morning’s “press conference,” Snelling was preaching to the choir: a room full of (approximately 80) anti-wind activists. As with the “press conference,” there was no opportunity for questions.

Before the event began, I introduced myself to Snelling. Afterward, he sought a brief word with me. Basically, he asked me to call him before writing about him or EV or wind, and complained about the “flippant media.” It was phrased with the artful obliqueness of the professional flack, but clearly he meant me.  

And yes, I have been flippant and snarky, and I’m sure I will be again. That’s part of the stock-in-trade of the indy blogger, in case you hadn’t noticed. Flippancy also has a storied heritage in Vermont political discourse, stemming from the Golden Age of Peter Freyne, whose heights of rhetorical flippancy I can only hope to attain.

But just for this post, I shall be snark-free, and will try to enumerate my non-flippant concerns with Snelling and EV. I hope this will help people understand why I see the anti-wind crowd the way I do.

Questions and concerns… after the jump.  

EV supports a three-year wind moratorium, but its 20-year energy plan does not include any increase in wind energy at all. Do you want a permanent ban on new utility-scale wind development? Under what conditions would you accept new wind development after a moratorium?

Would you be willing to accept new wind development now, if sited appropriately? Or is there no such thing as “appropriate” wind development?

Could you disavow some of the mistruths told by your supporters — for instance, the myth that wind advocates believe wind is the “magic bullet,” rather than one part of an overall solution? And that wind advocates want rampant, widespread turbine development? (The VPIRG report calls for six more wind farms the size of Lowell or Sheffield, which would supply 28% of our power needs and cause minimal disruption to the environment. And they call for appropriate sensitivity in siting decisions.) And that wind energy would do nothing to mitigate climate change?

Vermont’s established environmental groups, including VNRC, the Sierra Club, the Conservation Law Foundation, 350VT, and VPIRG, as well as the likes of Bill McKibben and Senator Bernie Sanders, all support wind as part of a plan for an entirely renewable electricity future. Why are they wrong, in your view?

Many of your supporters have accused McKibben, Sanders, and those environmental groups of corruption — of selling out their principles in pursuit of corporate support. Do you agree?

Why should I disbelieve these established groups with long track records, and accept the word of Energize Vermont, which is a three-year-old group that has (so far) refused to release any of its financial information?

Follow-up to establish EV’s bona fides: Could you provide EV’s basic financial information? List of donors — or, if you prefer, major donors (pick a number — $500 and up, $1,000 and up); annual budget and expenditures?

I realize you are not required to do so by law. But for the sake of transparency, please consider doing so.

Follow-up on your personal bona fides:

— How much are you paid as head of EV?

— I’ve found a residential address for you in Northampton, Massachusetts. Do you live in Vermont, or is Northampton your primary home?

— You are co-owner of Brave One, a PR firm based in Holyoke, MA. How would you describe the firm’s work and your role there? Can you provide a client list?

— Your partner in Brave One is Jesse Mayhew, who also acts as head of “Wake Up, Opt Out,” a group that opposes the use of smart meters. Are “Wake Up” and EV tied in any way? Did they arise out of your firm’s work or connections?

— Do you support or oppose smart meters?

EV’s 20-year plan includes significant increases in power from Hydro Quebec, which has significant environmental impacts, as you have yourself acknowledged. If we refuse to develop wind and instead import more power from HQ, are we not exporting the environmental costs of our power needs?

EV’s plan also includes increases in power sources that have attracted opposition from some of the same people who also oppose wind. You call for a huge expansion of solar power; the first major solar farm in Vermont has attracted opposition from nearby residents. You call for more biomass and local hydro, but those sources have also attracted opposition. There seems to be a movement essentially opposed to anything new anywhere. Are you and EV willing to endorse those power sources and support their expansion, even if it means alienating some of your own supporters?

There you go. Straightforward questions from a person who freely acknowledges he is an EV skeptic. If you want to convince people like me, and there are a lot of us, then these are the kinds of questions you will have to answer. And you’ll have to rein in (or disavow) the excesses of your supporters, who routinely seek to demonize the good people on the other side of the wind-power issue.  

Well, that was bullshit.

I just went down to the Statehouse for a “press conference” called by anti-wind activists. Small problem: it wasn’t a press conference, it was a rally. The room was full of anti-wind folks, and there was no opportunity to ask questions — which is the very essence of a press conference. Instead, there were brief statements from a few people met with loud cheers and applause from the people on hand.

Now look, I understand that this isn’t the worst offense against truth. But it was a clear bait-and-switch — draw the media into a room full of advocates, give them some sound bites and a good photo-op with a sympathetic backdrop, and reap the free publicity that follows. But it’s dishonest, and unbecoming of a “grass-roots” movement.  

The event was organized by professional concern troll Lukas Snelling, public-relations professional from Northampton, Massachusetts, and head of Energize Vermont — the “green” organization that staunchly opposes utility-scale wind development. EV had organized an anti-wind day in Montpelier today, offering free shuttle buses to people in the anti-wind hotbeds of the Rutland area and the Northeast Kingdom.

Dunno how many people took the buses; I saw about 60 people in the room, which wouldn’t be much of a turnout for a “growing” movement. In fact, it’d be disappointingly small.

I’ll be heading back shortly for another “press conference,” at which EV will unveil its version of a clean energy plan. Full details will come later. Plus, with any luck, a few questions and answers. But EV handed out a summary of its plan this morning, and here’s a brief overview.

The plan aims for 90% of our power to come from renewable sources by the year 2030. VPIRG’s previously released paper, “Repowering Vermont,” calls for 100% renewable electricity by the year 2032. Score one for VPIRG.

After the jump: More nuclear, more Hydro Quebec, less power.

EV’s plan relies on continued operation of Vermont Yankee or some other nuclear source (7% of our electricity), a substantial increase in power from Hydro Quebec (24% in VPIRG’s plan, 38% in EV’s) and from Vermont hydro (6% for VPIRG, 13% for EV). EV effectively freezes wind energy at current levels, while VPIRG sees it growing to 28% of our electric needs. (VPIRG says we could hit that target with only six new projects the size of Lowell or Sheffield. Surely we can find six sites in Vermont that aren’t overly impactful to people or wildlife?)

Now, here’s a biggie, if I’m understanding it correctly. EV foresees almost stable electricity demand: from 6,000GWHs (gigawatt hours) now, to 6,500 GWHs in 2030. That would seem to be at odds with the trend toward electric vehicles, which may result in a huge bump in power demand, even if you assume significant efficiency savings.

VPIRG’s plan includes two forecasts: One, based on “strong efficiency” measures, sees a modest reduction in overall power demand. So maybe EV has a point there. However, VPIRG also projects demand growth, in the absence of “strong efficiency,” to about 8,500GWHs by 2030.

And VPIRG’s plan meets that increase in power demand.

In short, EV’s plan provides about 30% less electricity than VPIRG’s. It relies much more heavily on Vermont and Quebec hydro; bear in mind that there’s a great deal of controversy over expansion of Hydro Quebec, and legitimate questions about how green it really is. And it assumes continued reliance on nuclear.

I hope to get some answers this afternoon, and if I’m wrong about any of this I’ll correct it. But at first glance, I like VPIRG’s plan a lot better than EV’s.  

Oh, it was a happy day in Barre, as local and state officials put the “dig” in “dignitary” at the groundbreaking for City Place, the new office/retail building on Main Street. (If Jim Douglas earned the nickname “Governor Scissorhands” for his frequent attendance at ribbon-cuttings, could we call his successor “Shovelin’ Shumlin” for his eager participation at groundbreakings?)

There were speeches, congratulations, and lots of back-slapping to mark the occasion, which was legitimately momentous for the city of Barre. City Place will bring hundreds of office workers to the heart of downtown, meaning plenty of new business for downtown shops, restaurants, and a certain gentlemen’s establishment.

But those of us in the jaded Statehouse media corps were mostly there to grab a few minutes with the Governor, since this event was in the time slot set aside for Shumlin’s weekly news conference. And he did give us a fair bit of time, standing outdoors on a disconcertingly warm midwinter day of the kind that never used to happen in Vermont before global warming, cough.  

Shumlin did his usual ducking and dodging and sticking to his (bolt-action) guns. On a few key issues, there was an interesting combination of holding firm to principle while also leaving some wiggle room. Highlights:

— He stood his ground on broad-based tax hikes — and took it one step further.

— He offered a more nuanced definition of “broad-based taxes.”

— He refused to consider alternatives to his proposed cut in the Earned Income Tax Credit to fund improved child care for the working poor.

— He also brushed off criticism of the proposed transition to the health care exchange, and insisted that no Vermonter would be too badly hurt.

— He offered conditional support for President Obama’s gun control package.

Details after the jump.  

Acceptable and unacceptable tax hikes. Some (induing yrs truly) have questioned Shumlin’s definition of “broad-based taxes” — why, for example, does “rooms and meals” qualify while a gas-tax increase would not? Well, his more nuanced but no more convincing definition went like this:

When I refer to broad-based taxes, I am talking about the general fund, not the transportation fund, and I am talking about taxes that support the general fund, which happen to be income, sales, and rooms and meals.

Which leaves him plenty of room to impose new taxes for special purposes and increase taxes that don’t go to the general fund — even if the taxes are extremely broad-based. But it closes the door on many of our more progressive forms of taxation.

He also took a step further in his opposition to tax increases he doesn’t like. Some lawmakers have been talking about trimming tax deductions and other “tax expenditures” rather than raising tax rates — but Shumlin isn’t buying.

As I’ve said many times, Vermont’s biggest challenge is not that our taxes are not high enough, it is that they are too high.  …Now they can call it something else, like playing with deductions — you’re asking people to pay more income tax, and I’m not willing to do that.

That EITC cut. Many lawmakers, up to and including House Speaker Shap Smith, have balked at Shumlin’s proposal to shift some funds out of the Earned Income Tax Credit to pay for more generous child-care benefits for the working poor. Shumlin took a hard line today:

I feel very strongly that the education package for prosperity is just that — a package. And we need to pass every part of the package. … And if you pull one leg out from under it, it falls apart. If you don’t do the Earned Income Tax Credit reinvestment — it’s not a cut, it’s reinvesting the same dollars with the same population but putting them to better use.

Health care exchange. When the exchange opens on 1/1/14, the Catamount and VHAP programs will, by federal mandate, end. The transition would hit some Vermonters with higher premiums. Shumlin’s budget was said to include enough money to “hold them harmless.” But as it turns out, that’s not really true: everyone would be “held harmless” on insurance premiums, but some Vermonters (especially those between 200-300% of the federal poverty level) would be liable for much higher out-of-pocket costs. If they stay healthy, they come out ahead; but if they have significant illness, they’d have to pay more.

The Governor today tried to limit the damage, by (a) shifting the blame to the feds, and (b) trying to explain how this really won’t hurt anyone – -at least not too badly.

I don’t think they’re going to be hit “pretty hard.” I think the package that we came up with will ensure that the federal bill that is less generous than our current plan will make sure that no one is asked to stretch beyond their ability to pay.

He added that someone would “have to have pretty extraordinary circumstances” to face a big increase in medical bills under the exchange. Which is almost reassuring, no?

Gun control. Shumlin reiterated his desire for a 50-state solution, and he qualified his previously stated support for President Obama’s proposal for an assault-weapons ban:

Depending on how they define an assault weapon. One of my concerns is that they’ve got a bunch of city boys down there trying to define an assault weapon.  …And some of the definitions of assault weapon I’ve seem coming up in Washington would impinge on a Vermont sportsman’s ability to use the weapons they’re currently using. I don’t think that’s smart.

He also addressed a gun-control measure proposed by State Rep. Linda Waite-Simpson. He stopped short of a veto threat, but he made it clear he doesn’t want new state law — he wants only federal action.  

Ruh-roh. At his press conference today, Governor Shumlin betrayed his true allegiance in mildly-alcoholic libations.

Budweiser.

It went down like this. Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz asked Shumlin if he’d ever played the break-open tickets that would be taxed under the Governor’s budget plan. Here’s the key exchange:

Heintz: Do you ever play the break-open tickets?

Shumlin: Oh yeah, anyone who drinks beer has played break-open tickets.

Heintz: I drink a lot of beer, and I haven’t played any.

Shumlin: Oh yeah? Well, you’re not drinkin’ in the right place.

Jeb Spaulding: You’re drinking those five-dollar beers.

Heintz: Where do you buy them?

Shumlin: Oh, you can get ’em at any club or bar in Vermont. I’m a Windham County boy, so I’ve played ’em in Windham County. Rockingham, the Elks, the Brattleboro Legion. I can take you there if you want, I’ll even buy you a beer. But you’re not gettin’ that Gucci beer. We’re drinkin’, you know, Budweiser.

There you have it, Vermont brewers. Your stuff is “Gucci beer,” and real Vermonters drink out-of-state pisswater.

Why do I suspect that sometime soon, Shumlin will make time for a photo-op at Heady Topper or Hill Farmstead or Lawson’s Finest? Hell, I’ll invite him for a five-dollar beer at the Three Penny, anytime. I’ll even buy the first round.

Stay tuned for more on the serious stuff from Shumlin’s presser.

Our own Rep. Peter Welch has introduced a bill to repeal a $500 million provision of the recently passed “fiscal cliff” bill characterized by The New York Times as a “gift.”

The bill Rep. Welch is sponsoring involves a complicated bit of legislative legerdemain buried deep in an essentially unrelated bill that went mostly unread before it was approved. But the gist is that Sens. Baucus (D-Montana), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah, Big Pharma branch), and Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky, Senate Minority Leader) all strongly supported a provision inserted in the fiscal cliff bill that granted an additional two-year delay in implementing a Medicare payment reform for kidney dialysis, through 2016. The reform would “bundle” payment for dialysis and the drugs prescribed to kidney patients, instead of allowing doctors and dialysis centers to bill separately for the drugs, a set up, The NYT says tended to result in overprescribing. The delay in the billing and payment reform is worth $500 million over the two-year span.

While several companies make drugs involved in dialysis treatment, the biotech company that arguably stood to gain the most – and has 74 lobbyists on Capitol Hill and was the only company pushing for the delay – was Amgen. Amgen pled guilty just a few weeks ago to illegally marketing an anti-anemia drug, and was fined $762 million in criminal and civil penalties.

It is notable that among these three supporters of the billing reform delay, several current and former members of their staffs have close ties to Amgen, as The NYT documents: Orrin Hatch’s top aide was a healthcare policy analyst for Amgen; Baucus and McConnell were likely lobbied by their former chiefs of staff, who now work for Amgen. Further, all three Senators received substantial campaign contributions from Amgen employees and PACs, ranging from almost $60k to over $70k each since 2007.

MoveOn.org has taken notice, via a petition supporting Rep. Welch’s bill to repeal the delay in implementing the Medicare payment reform, a.k.a, Amgen’s “gift.”

From Rep. Welch’s press release:

“This eleventh-hour, backroom deal confirms the American public’s worst suspicions of how Congress operates,” Welch said. “As the nation’s economy teetered on the edge of a Congressional-created fiscal cliff, lobbyists for a private, for-profit company seized an opportunity to feed at the public trough. Without scrutiny or debate, the American taxpayer was stuck with the $500 million tab. This special interest provision should have stood on its own merits with an up or down vote. It’s no wonder cockroaches and root canals are more popular than Congress.

Thanks, Peter. Good work. Given that two of those three Senators are among the “fiscal hawks” demanding spending cuts (except for their friends and donors) “or else,” it’s clear that your hypocrisy detector is still functioning well, and that you have the spine to do something about it.  

Let us take a moment to commiserate with Sen. Peter Galbraith (D-Petrobucks), the honorable and self-funded public servant who innocently entered Tuesday’s Senate Natural Resources Committee hearing on the proposed wind moratorium, not realizing that he was about to suffer a case of first-degree hurt fee-fees.

The dastardly perpetrator: Paul Burns, head of VPIRG, testifying against the moratorium. He faced an unfriendly audience; three of the five Senators on the committee are co-sponsors of the moratorium bill. (Way to pack the panel, John Campbell!) Senators confronted him with a comment he’d made earlier, to the effect that supporting a wind moratorium was equivalent to rejecting the reality of climate change. As Peter “Marathan Man” Hirschfeld* of the Vermont Press Bureau reported, “The senators didn’t appreciate his tone.”

*Hirschfeld, now the VPB’s sole reporter, somehow managed to cover the wind hearing, the Democrats’ campaign finance press event, AND the death-with-dignity hearing, all in a single day. Whew!

Galbraith asked Burns if it wasn’t possible to believe in climate change and still oppose ridgeline wind development.  Burns’ reply, in Hirschfeld’s words: “It’s difficult to know which is worse – not believing in climate change and opposing wind because you think it’s unnecessary, or believing global warming is real and fighting against wind anyway.”

After another back-and-forth, Galbraith advised Burns to “consider adopting a more civil tone,” and added,

“I guess there are at least three flat-earthers here in this committee, in your view. I wouldn’t characterize your position in an extreme way … And you owe to be respectful to people on the other side and not characterize them in such an extreme way.”

Mmm, yes, “respectful to people on the other side.” Let’s consider that.  

Paul Burns and his colleagues in the Vermont environmental movement have been ruthlessly pilloried by the Tinfoil Hat Brigade of the anti-wind crowd.  VPIRG, VNRC, the Sierra Club, and the other pro-wind environmental groups — who spend long hours for low pay trying to defend our environment — have been accused of selling out their principles to some sort of vaguely defined Blittersdorf/Iberdrola big wind cartel.

Those accusations extend to, of all people, Bernie Sanders. In a comment thread below the VTDigger article on Bernie’s opposition to the moratorium, he is accused of being “energy-illiterate, on the take from Big Wind, or both” (Mary Barton), “violat[ing] truth and public trust” and “attempts to manipulate through outright misrepresentation of facts”  and cronyism (Peggy Sapphire), doing favors for the wind industry and not knowing “how wind energy actually works” (Will Amidon), “a raging hypocrite” (Ellin Anderson) and of selling out for a campaign contribution from David Blittersdorf (our ol’ buddy Patrick Cashman).

“Respectful,” indeed. The vast majority of the vituperation in this debate has come from the anti-wind crowd.

Now, let’s talk about corruption and the appearance thereof, in the person of Peter Galbraith. Here we have a wind-moratorium supporter who made a huge pile of money — as much as $100,000,000 — from oil fields in the Kurdish region of Iraq.

Which probably makes him Vermont’s biggest fossil-fuel magnate.

Hmm, and he supports the wind moratorium.

I’m not saying he’s corrupt, but I am saying there’s a hell of a lot more appearance of corruption in his case than in Bernie’s.

There’s also the question of how Galbraith landed this incredibly lucrative deal. The former diplomat was an adviser to Kurdish leaders in Iraq from 2003-2005, a time when he was an influential voice in the American debate over the Iraq War and an advocate of Kurdish separatism. During that three-year period, he also had business dealings with oil companies in Iraqi Kurdistan. The biggest deal was with a Norwegian oil company; it gave him a 5% stake in a very productive Kurdish oil field.

Galbraith told the Boston Globe that there was no conflict of interest because he was working as a private citizen at the time and besides, “The business interest… was consistent with my political views.”

Yeah, it’s nice when you can cash in bigtime on your political views.  

In a way that Bernie Sanders has never done. The anti-wind crowd demonizes Bernie, not because they have any evidence, but simply because he disagrees with them. And the anti-wind crowd eagerly accepts the support of Galbraith, in spite of his vast oil wealth.

As for Galbraith, he’s throwing stones and he appears to live in a glass house.  

A cluster of top Democrats gathered today to unveil a campaign-finance reform plan that’s long on disclosure and transparency — and, by necessity, short on actual spending limits. That’s because of the restrictions on campaign finance law imposed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United and Western Tradition Partnership v. Montana cases. In a post-Citizens United world, said Secretary of State Jim Condos, the only avenue for reform is “better, stronger, and more frequent disclosure.”  

“I wish that we could end the current system of essentially unlimited money,” added House Speaker Shap Smith, “but we have to understand that’s not going to happen. We are controlled by the precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. But I do think transparency will make a huge difference.”

The plan is essentially identical to those proposed by VPIRG and by a group of Republican lawmakers — a fact not only acknowledged, but celebrated, by those in attendance today. “It’s hugely encouraging that both parties are coming together over [this] issue,” said Bob Stannard, head of Priorities PAC, the anti-SuperPAC SuperPAC. “They all appear to be on the same page, and I think that’s great.”

(Pictured, left to right: Secretary of State Condos, VDP Chair Perkinson, Senate President Campbell. Speaker Shap Smith hidden, Valerie Jarrett style, behind Campbell.)

There was one significant difference in the Democrats’ plan, and it was delivered with an unsubtle slam against one of GMD’s favorite bete noires — Bruce Lisman’s Campaign for Vermont. The Dems have vivid recollections of CFV’s thinly-veiled attack ads, and they really want to prevent a repeat. They want to impose new reporting requirements for organizations that “hide behind slick names” (Condos’ words) and engage in “public issue spending.” CFV was mentioned by name (repeatedly), but the requirement could also target groups like Vermonters for Health Care Freedom and Wake Up, Opt Out which engaged in issue advertising in 2012.  

The mood of tripartisan celebration (yes, they praised the Progs as well) was tempered by the rather curious fact that the lead speaker was Jake Perkinson, head of the Vermont Democratic Party. And the news release was printed on VDP letterhead. The assembled Dems didn’t really have a good explanation for that; they referred to the necessity of including political parties in the reform process, but didn’t address Perkinson’s central role in the event.  

The Dems’ reform proposals include:  

— In the last 45 days before an election, all PACs and Super PACs would have to disclose all donations and expenditures over $250 within 24 hours.

— If a single individual contributes 25% or more of a PAC’s or Super PAC’s total bankroll, that individual must be identified by name in every advertisement. (Call that the Lenore Broughton Clause, although it could also apply to Lisman; see next point.)

— Full disclosure of political spending by “nonpolitical” groups. The Dems specifically and repeatedly cited Lisman’s CFV as their example.

— Penalties for candidates and organizations that fail to meet filing deadlines.

— Mandatory electronic campaign filing, and a searchable online database for all campaign finance information. This is the only item that would require funding — perhaps as much as $1 million for new technology in the Secretary of State’s office.

The only available cost estimate was crafted a few years ago by Condos’ predecessor, Deb Markowitz; it pegged the technology cost at between $600,000 and $1M. The cost may be lower than that, if Vermont can make use of software already used by other states. And even in a tight budget year, legislative leaders voiced a commitment to finding the money: “These are things we really have to do,” said John Campbell, Senate President Pro Tem. “Everyone across the board believes that we need more transparency in campaign finance.”  

Reform advocate Bob Stannard was generally pleased, but he’d like to see one more addition to the plan: some basic biographical information.

I don’t think it’s enough that we just name the donors. We have to get to the motives for the donation — and you can set a limit on that, maybe anybody over $2,000. When you start giving major money, then it’s important to find out what’s that person’s background? What’s the motivation behind the money? Is the person the head of a large company or an employee?  I think that would make it more transparent and take it to a different and better level.

Although there’s substantial agreement across the political spectrum, there are some issues to be resolved — and some of them could lead to extensive debate. The biggest is how to define “public issue spending” — the Dems all agreed that Lisman’s CFV was obviously political in 2012, but beyond that, there’s a substantial gray zone. And unresolved questions about how far Vermont can go.  “I think that’s to be determined,” said Condos. “That’s some of the debate the Legislature needs to have. They need to bring in the Attorney General to talk about the constitutional law. We’ll have to look at that, and there may be nothing we can do.”

Other unresolved points: what kinds of penalties to impose for late filing (“We need to make it hurt,” said Condos), and the exact frequency of filing deadlines. Example: under current law, the first deadline during a campaign year is July 15, which I’ve argued is too late. “I would personally agree with you,” said Perkinson, “and that’s an issue that’s up for debate. There is broad agreement that there should be more frequent filings. As to the exact dates, that will have to be discussed.”  

The last word goes to State Sen. Ginny Lyons, who put the entire issue into context:

This will not end until the federal government has a dialogue about what money means in our democracy. This is the beginning of a conversation in this state, but ultimately, Congress is going to have to consider the Citizens United decision and all those other decisions that have brought us to this point.

Wayne LaPierre, head of the NRA, plans to call for anarchy when he testifies in front of the Senate tomorrow, per his written statement issued today:

And when it comes to the issue of background checks, let’s be honest – background checks will never be “universal” – because criminals will never submit to them.

What he really means to say is that gun laws are pointless, as criminals will always find ways of breaking laws.  Which, come to think of it, should apply to all laws.  Why bother having a law against murder when criminals will find a way to commit murder?  Heck, get rid of embezzlement laws.  That hasn’t stopped things here in Vermont.  Or better yet, get rid of pedophile laws, as we all know that’s done nothing to slow down the Catholic Church.  Right, Cardinal Mahoney?

So if laws don’t work, the absence of law must be preferable.  What Mr. LaPierre and the kind folks at the NRA really want then is anarchy.  Or at the very least, the freedom to sell guns to whomever they want, because everybody knows how much good patriotic Americans abhor lost business opportunities.

Okay; let’s try this again.

The NRA is saying that background checks won’t work because criminals will get the guns somehow anyway. They still insist we should arm every school in the nation.

I suppose an extension of this idea would be to require all movie theaters to have armed guards.  How about churches, daycare centers, and mega-super-grocery stores?

How far does this idea extend, and who pays for all of this arming-up?

We know who profits if this proposal is adopted.  It’s a win-win for the gun industry.

Let’s set aside, for a moment, all of the Second Amendment discussion that accompanies any proposal to limit access to guns; because the NRA and its manufacturing backers are successfully using that hot-button topic to distract us from who really holds control over the guns in this country.

As I wrote before, I think there is a better way to go about reducing gun violence in America: manufacturer liability.  

Why is there no push to make manufacturers responsible for ensuring that their products do not wind up in the wrong hands?  I see it mentioned here and there by other writers,  but the NRA seems to have succeeded in deflecting everyone’s attention to the unwinnable Second Amendment debate.

They know well how to divide and conquer.

Weapons manufacturers have no skin in the game.  They profit no matter who gets hurt. Sometimes even more so when a mass shooting like Connecticut sets off a weapons buying frenzy.  

With the threat of liability restored among gun-makers, I guarantee that they and the NRA will come up with some cunning new ways to limit the industry’s exposure to risk, which will, collaterally, serve to reduce gun violence.  I don’t know how they’ll do it.  I just have every confidence that they will.  

Why is the American public staked-out to assume all of the risk associated with a manufacturer’s extremely profitable product?

Senators Leahy and Sanders; Congressman Welch: how about it?