A drafting error in the state’s new campaign finance law left Vermont temporarily without contribution limits. The new limits are set to take effect on January 1, 2015, but the bill repealed the entire existing law effective upon the governor’s signature.

Although the repealed statutory limits had been invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2006, the law reverted to the limits prior to the unconstitutional amendment. The prior contribution limits will remain in effect until the new limits begin in 2015, according to a statement on the Elections Division website.

Vermont has passed comprehensive campaign finance reform early in the second year of its biennial session. Senate Bill 82, signed by Governor Peter Shumlin on January 23, repealed Vermont’s existing campaign finance law and enacted a new framework in its place. The most notable provision of the bill is new campaign finance limits. The new limits, effective January 1, 2015 are as follows:

• Candidates for the office of state representative: $1,000 per election cycle from a single source or political committee;
• Candidates for the office of state senator: $1,500 per election cycle from a single source or political committee;
• Candidates for the offices of governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, auditor of accounts, or attorney general: $4,000 per election cycle from a single source or political committee;
• Candidates for candidates for local office: $1,000 per election cycle from a single source or political committee;
• Candidates for county office: $1,500 per election cycle from a single source or political committee;
• Contributions to a political committee: $4,000 per election cycle from a single source, political committee, or political party; and
• Contributions to political parties: $10,000 per election cycle from a single source, political committee, or political party.

Critics of the bill noted the high limit on contributions to political parties, notable because political parties may give unlimited contributions to candidates under the new framework. The bill also included an aggregate election cycle limit of $40,000 from a single source to take effect January 1, 2015, unless the U.S. Supreme Court holds such limits unconstitutional when it delivers its decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

The Legislature adjourned late Tuesday, May 14, 2013, after passing a $1.4 billion budget bill.

Other hallmark legislation of the session included decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana, assisted suicide, and driver’s licenses for migrant workers, but the legislature failed to pass a major campaign finance reform bill.

Supporters of campaign finance reform vowed to revisit the issue in January 2014.

Photo of Vermont State House by Decumanus on Wikipedia.

Representative Kurt Wright announced his intention to introduce campaign finance legislation that will enhance disclosures in an election year. Wright and 10 other legislators are working on legislation that would require campaign finance reports to be filed monthly after January 15 in an election year, and increase filing to biweekly leading up to a primary or general election.

Currently, filings are due monthly after July 15.

The bill will also contain provisions related to donor disclosure, requiring PACs to disclose a top contributor if he or she provides more than half of all contributions in a six-month period, and super PACs to disclose their top three donors if their combined contributions account for more than half of contributions received.

Photo of Vermont State House by Jared C. Benedict on Wikipedia.

Attorney General William Sorrell has issued a statement that his office will not enforce the $2,000 contribution limit on PACs that only make independent expenditures. The statement comes after a request for clarification from Secretary of State Jim Condos regarding the federal court decision in Vermont Right to Life Committee (VRLC) v. Sorrell.

While the opinion in VRLC v. Sorrell upheld the contribution limit as applied to VRLC’s independent expenditure committee, the ruling was based on the lack of safeguards to ensure that unlimited contributions to VRLC’s independent expenditure committee did not flow into VRLC’s candidate contribution funds.

Attorney General Sorrell stressed that if investigation reveals a PAC’s activities are not conducted entirely independently of candidates, as in VRLC v. Sorrell, it will continue to be subject to the contribution limits.

Photo of Attorney General William Sorrell by Overton2002 on Wikipedia.

It will be two more years before Vermont’s campaign finance reports are available in a searchable database, according to the secretary of state’s office.

Currently, Vermont offers scanned copies of campaign finance reports online, but there is no easy way to search for donor names or contribution totals, and handwriting on the forms may be difficult to read. The secretary of state hoped that such a database would be available for the 2014 elections, but is unable to give a precise timetable or detailed costs.

Common Cause Vermont recently compiled its own searchable database for the 2010 state elections.

A federal judge has upheld Vermont’s contribution limits on political action committees. Vermont Right to Life Committee (VRLC) and its related political committee, Vermont Right to Life Committee – Fund for Independent Political Expenditures (FIPE), filed suit alleging that Vermont’s registration, reporting, and disclosure requirements for PACs are too broad and unconstitutional, and that FIPE should not be subject to the $2,000 limit on PAC contributions because it only makes independent expenditures.

The judge rejected FIPE’s claim that it should not be subject to the contribution limits on the basis that there is a “fluidity of funds” between FIPE and VRLC that provides no safeguard against unlimited contributions being used to fund candidate contributions.

Secretary of State Jim Condos applauded the ruling; however, the opinion makes clear that the decision to uphold the $2,000 contribution limit weighed heavily on the facts of the case, in particular the lack of separation between FIPE and VRLC. VRLC plans to appeal the ruling.

Alaska: “Redistricting map solutions elusive as court battle looms” by Richard Mauer in the Anchorage Daily News.

Kansas: “Kansas Senate OKs redistricting plan” by Brad Cooper in the Kansas City Star.

Kentucky: “Kentucky Supreme Court cites redistricting law as unconstitutional” by Franklin Clark in the Cadiz Record.

Mississippi: “Mississippi Senate unveils its redistricting map” by The Associated Press in the Clarion Ledger.

New Hampshire: “House redistricting plan faces more legal challenges” by Garry Rayno in the Union Leader.

Pennsylvania: “Redistricting panel to receive input on new Pa. maps” by Ali Lanyon (Associated Press) on WHTM.

South Carolina: “Supreme Court considering fate of primary candidates” by Gina Smith in The State.

South Carolina: “SC justices consider fate of dozens of candidates” by Jeffrey Collins (Associated Press) in the Spartanburg Herald Journal.

Vermont: “Vt. lawmakers finish redistricting” on NECN.com.

“Redistricting takes some of the ‘swing’ out of House fights” by Susan Davis in USA Today.

Alaska: “It may be too late for another legislative redistricting plan” by Becky Bohrer in the Anchorage Daily News.

Arizona: “State Supreme Court reaffirms that governor shouldn’t have fired redistricting chair” by Howard Fischer in the East Valley Tribune.

Kansas: “Kobach warns of redistricting crisis” by John Hanna (Associated Press) in the Lawrence Journal-World.

Mississippi: “Mississippi lawmakers tackle redistricting” by Phil West in The Commercial Appeal.

Pennsylvania: “Pennsylvania’s new map pits incumbent Democrats in primary” by Sean Lengell in The Washington Times.

Vermont: “Vermont Senate endorses redistricting plans” by Nancy Remsen in the Burlington Free Press.

Wyoming: “State: Redistricting plaintiffs have no standing to file suit” by Trevor Brown in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle.

Citizens in 53 communities approved a measure on Vermont’s Town Meeting Day, coinciding with Super Tuesday, calling on the United States Congress to begin the process of amending the Constitution in order to clarify that corporations do not share the same rights as natural persons possess.

The push for such a measure is a result of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Citizen’s United case.

Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator from Vermont, introduced such an amendment in December and appreciated support by his constituents for his efforts, noting “Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, Town Meeting Day voters understood that corporations are not people.”