My Turn: Campaign finance bill fails Vermonters

The late Molly Ivins said it well: “Either we keep corporate money out of the political system, or we lose the democracy.”

A new campaign finance bill enacted by state lawmakers late last month not only fails to do that, it significantly increases the amount wealthy individuals and corporations can contribute to Vermont’s political parties and candidates.

S.82 was signed into law by Gov. Shumlin on Jan. 23. It was originally intended as a campaign finance reform bill, but now, despite some measured improvements, looks more like a free pass for the 1 percent to influence Vermont elections. Under the new law, statewide candidates can receive up to $4,000 from an individual or corporation — two times the old limit. Political parties can now receive up to $10,000 per donor and can funnel unlimited amounts to candidates of their choice.

This was quite a departure from a version passed by the Senate last year that would have limited donations to parties at $3,000 and capped donations from parties to candidates.

An ultimately failed amendment would have prohibited corporate donations completely.

During Vermont’s 2012 elections, the Vermont Democratic Party, the Vermont Republican Party and their candidates for statewide office received over a hundred donations from corporations including Monsanto, AgriMark, Fairpoint, Pfizer, Coca Cola, and more.

A ban on corporate donations would have allowed lawmakers to debate important issues such as GMO labeling and the path to single-payer health care with the assurance that our policy outcomes weren’t tainted by corporate meddling.

In the end, like many bills, this one ended up on a conference committee since the House and Senate failed to agree on an initial compromise.

Their work was particularly mystifying. Faced with conflicting mandates to cap donations to political parties at either $3,000 or $5,000, the conference committee doubled the upper limit to $10,000. Faced with recommendations from the Senate to curb the amount parties can give to candidates, the committee opted instead for unlimited spending. This unfortunate draft was passed by the House in their first week back in session.

Perhaps they moved quickly because public opinion is decidedly against the path they’ve taken. Poll after poll reveals a populace that’s fed up with big money in politics and views politicians as corrupted by its influence. So it was no surprise that Gov. Shumlin signed the bill quietly, within a week of its passage. This, despite a grassroots call to veto the bill, which gathered over a 1,500 petitioners in a handful of days.

Clearly, our point of view is not valued, no matter how widespread.

Why didn’t Montpelier take the time to get it right? Lawmakers could have rejected the work of the conference committee; the governor could have vetoed the bill and sent it back to the Legislature. The expediency with which the bill was shoved through the Statehouse and the Governor’s Office should be an embarrassment to those involved.

Who does this bill actually help? Is it working Vermonters already struggling to connect to a political process they view as increasingly out-of-touch, or a handful of wealthy individuals and corporations with political agendas and the candidates they support?

I’ll let our friends in Montpelier field that question. Something tells me that deep down, they know the answer.

This commentary original appeared in the Burlington Free Press on February 5th.