This is part two of a two-part series on money in Vermont politics. Part one focused on independent advocacy groups; find it here.
There’a plenty of outrage in these parts over the Citizens United ruling and the ensuing flood tide of money in politics. The ruling was certainly a disaster, but it imposes no limits on one significant means of reform: greater transparency in the process. And on that particular score, Vermont’s laws are terrible. They are holdovers from a simpler time, and nothing much is being done to update them.
The problems include: infrequent campaign reporting deadlines, an archaic system of gathering campaign reports, a failure to require useful information about political donors, and virtually nonexistent rules for local campaigns.
There are bills in the Legislature to address some of these issues, but it looks like nothing will happen in this session. Given the fact that the Democrats have held complete sway in state government for over a year, this is surprising. And, in my opinion, disgraceful. If Democrats won’t lead the way on improving campaign laws, do you think Republicans will do any better?
After the jump: four easy steps to greater transparency, and inertia in the Legislature.
1. Campaign reporting deadlines.
We are currently in a one-year dead zone for campaign disclosure. In off-years like 2011, only one report is required — in mid-July. That’s fine; in Vermont, campaigns are basically dormant in off-years.
But the next report isn’t due until mid-July of the following year. (After that, campaigns must file monthly reports through December.) This is a relic of a time when campaigning really and truly didn’t start until the Legislature adjourned.
That remains the polite fiction of Vermont politics today; nobody in state government likes to announce a candidacy until after adjournment, because it might “politicize” their work in the Legislature.
In the words of Ralph Kramden, “Hardy har har.”
As if it isn’t crystal clear when someone is running. The rumors fly. Non-denials are coyly issued. The frequency of press releases and news conferences goes up, as does the advocacy of hot-button causes and the criticism of the other party.
“I believe that we should have monthly reports in election years,” says Wally Roberts of Common Cause Vermont. I agree. We should be able to find out, well before July, who’s raising how much money and from whom.
2. An archaic process for filing campaign reports.
This was one of the issues responsible for Vermont’s dismal D+ grade in the Center for Public Integrity’s recent report on transparency in state governments. “The way the state stores records now,” says Roberts, “candidates submit hard copies of disclosure reports. They’re scanned into .pdf’s and posted online, but they’re not searchable.”
Which makes it difficult to track major donors. If all records were posted digitally, it would be simple to find all sorts of useful information. Imagine being able to list all an individual’s donations (pick a name out of thin air, “Bruce Lisman”) in one simple online search. It’d also be easier for the campaigns if they could file electronically, instead of having to produce and submit paper copies.
Common Cause Vermont recently established its own searchable database of all campaign donations in the 2010 season. CCVT took the step for two reasons: to make the information available, and to show how easily it could be done.
So why hasn’t Vermont done it? “Lethargy,” says Roberts. And, a bit more charitably, he adds: “It would require some money. Estimates for [a system of] electronic campaign finance reports on the Web are anywhere from $250,000 to a million dollars or more.”
Times are tough and budgets are tight. But that strikes me as a small investment in making our political process more open and accessible.
3. A lack of pertinent information
I’ll turn this one over to Jon Margolis of Vermont Digger:
Worse perhaps, Vermont’s campaign finance laws require disclosure of the names and addresses of contributors, but not their employers or professions. An investigator wanting to know how much workers at the XYZ Corporation gave to Candidate A would have to have the company’s employee roster in hand to check against the campaign filings.
I think that’d be nice to know.
4. Minimal reporting requirements for local candidates.
Local candidates are not required to file campaign finance reports until ten days before the election. Then they file a final report ten days after the election. That’s it.
Now, if you’re running for select board ion a shoestring, that might be so bad. But when you have a Burlington Mayoral race with a price tag in the neighborhood of $200,000, it’s ridiculous.
“At the time of the Burlington Democratic Caucus, there was no reporting requirement,” says State Rep. Jason Lorber, one of the Dem candidates for Mayor. “I voluntarily reported my information. Because of that, Miro [Weinberger] also reported his. Even after the nomination, there was no requirement until ten days before the election. Till that time, the voters were in a ‘black hole of information.'”
Lorber proposed legislation that would standardize reporting requirements for local and state candidates who raise more than a minimum amount of money. “Maybe $500, maybe more,” he says. “Maybe $2,000. If you’re running for school board or mayor and raising significant amounts of money, I think the public should have access to the information.”
5. Where things stand.
There were two bills in the Vermont House that addressed aspects of campaign law. One would establish an electronic database for campaign spending reports; the other would establish uniform reporting requirements for state and local candidates who spend more than a certain amount of money.
The bills were referred to a House committee, which awaited action in a Senate committee on similar legislation. Well, crossover week has come and gone — the traditional cutoff point for advancing legislation out of committee — and nothing more has been heard. It seems likely that campaign disclosure legislation is a dead issue for the 2012 Legislature.
One Statehouse observer told me that there are major disagreements within party caucuses and across party lines on how best to reform the laws*, and no real push from the public. That’s a recipe for stasis.
*Peter Galbraith, for example, supports a ban on corporate contributions, but wants no limits on individual donations. In 2010, he spent far more on his campaign than any other State Senate candidate. He raised $58,000, almost all of it from his own pocket; no one else raised or spent more than $40,000.
Which is a shame. It looks like we will go through an entire biennium of Democratic control with no action on campaign disclosure laws. The outrage over Citizens United may make people feel better, and it was certainly heartening to see the one-sided results of Town Meeting resolutions on the issue. But that’s a long, drawn-out, slow battle with an (at best) uncertain outcome.
Meanwhile, right here in Vermont, there are simple, basic steps that would make the system much more transparent. And nothing is being done.
