A new law governing contribution limits to political candidates was one of the first bills passed out of the Legislature this year. But a clerical error means the legislation won’t take effect until after the next election. And in the meantime, some campaign finance watchdogs worry contribution limits have been thrown out the window for the 2014 election cycle.
Gov. Peter Shumlin signed the Legislature’s campaign finance bill into law back in January. But it didn’t take long for lawyers to realize one major problem: While the bill repealed the old campaign finance statute immediately, the new one doesn’t go into effect until next year. And for the 2014 elections at least, the mistake created legal ambiguity about the rules of the campaign road.
"It was clear that no one on the conference committees from either chamber was thinking that, 'oh, we want this current cycle to be like the Wild West with no rules whatsoever." - Attorney General Bill Sorrell.
Attorney General Bill Sorrell urged lawmakers to rectify the situation by passing a technical correction before the close of the session. But the Legislature adjourned last week without having made the fix. And Secretary of State Jim Condos this week asked Sorrell to clarify the status of Vermont’s campaign finance statutes.
Sorrell says he thinks the old law will remain in effect through the remainder of this year, and that statewide candidates are still bound by $2,000 maximum contribution limit spelled out in that statute.
The plain language of the law would suggest that Vermont has no limits in place, Sorrell says. But he says legislative intent in this instance is the more relevant factor. And he says it was clear that lawmakers had no intent of giving wealthy donors carte blanche when it comes to opening up their checkbooks to candidates for office.
“It was clear that no one on the conference committees from either chamber was thinking that, ‘oh, we want this current cycle to be like the Wild West with no rules whatsoever,’” Sorrell says.
Sorrell says legislative inaction notwithstanding, he’s confident he can argue his case successfully in court, should deep-pocketed interests look to exploit the loophole.
But campaign finance watchdogs and some political operatives aren’t so sure.
Paul Burns is the head of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, an organization that has sought to limit the influence of money in politics. Burns says the Legislature’s failure to address the problem leaves the state unnecessarily exposed big money influences in the next election.
Burns says there’s a good chance a judge would agree with Sorrell’s legislative intent argument.
“But it is also entirely possible that a judge could look at the way the law was written and say, ‘but that is what the law says’” Burns says. “And I wouldn’t want to be in the attorney general’s shoes to enforce the law as it currently stands.”
Darcie Johnston, a veteran political operative in Vermont, served as campaign manager for the Republican candidate for governor in the last elections. Johnston says that if she had a client in the 2014 elections, she wouldn’t be taking Sorrell’s opinion as gospel.
“Lawyers on both sides of this issue will have to take a review of it. But I would not want to have to defend our attorney general’s position,” Johnston says.
Windham Sen. Jeannette White, the Democratic chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Government Operations, says that the fix to the campaign finance law was part a broader technical corrections bill that Senate lawmakers didn’t have time to get to in the busy days before adjournment.
Sorrell and White say disclosure requirements still mean Vermonters will at least know if candidates are accepting more than the limits established in the old law. And they say that negative publicity from accepting that money would outweigh whatever benefits it might buy.
“You’d get more negative publicity out of accepting a $50,000 donation than it would be worth, because that really would open up somebody to public scrutiny,” White says.
Vermont’s campaign finance statutes have long been clouded by conflicting legal opinions. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2006 threw out a Vermont law that sought to clamp down on political contributions. And while Sorrell said that means the state automatically reverted back to its old limits, others have questioned whether the state is in fact operating in a statutory void when it comes to limits.
No one has ever challenged the issue in court.
The campaign finance law that will take effect next year raises the amount of money candidates for office – statewide and local – can accept in a two-year election cycle. Statewide candidates can now accept up to $4,000 from any given individual, up from $2,000. Candidates for the House will be able to accept up to $1,000 from a single donor; Senate and county candidates will be allowed up to $1,500 per donor.
The legislation will also allow individuals to contribute up to $10,000 to political parties, and
political parties will be able to transfer an unlimited amount straight to candidates.
Burns calls the legislation a disappointment for VPIRG and other groups that had hoped the Vermont Legislature would use its rewrite of campaign finance laws to minimize the amount of money in politics, not ramp it up.
“The Legislature in the end I think decided of instead of passing a campaign finance reform piece of legislation, decided to make it more of an arms race bill, to allow for candidates to receive more and larger contributions, particularly statewide candidates, from very wealthy individuals, political action committees and corporations.”
Defenders of the legislation say the higher limits will help candidates offset the influence of super PACs, which are allowed to accept unlimited sums from individual donors, so long as they operate independently from the candidates they’re trying to get elected.
