State of Vermont

---

Office of the Secretary of State

---

What I'd like to offer tonight are a few fundamental observations that I would ask you to remember as you consider the question of campaign finance reform in Vermont.

• First, I would urge you, as you begin this task, to always keep foremost in your mind the difference between those things we can control at the state level and those things we cannot.

  Things are bad enough at the federal level and at the state level in some states that you have good cause to take up this issue at this time. But let us recognize the limitations involved. Nothing you can do here will fix the problem at the federal level or rescue the electoral process in other jurisdictions.

  Whatever this Vermont Legislature chooses to do, let us work together to craft a Vermont solution to Vermont's problems and potential problems. Let us bear in mind the remarkable fact that, as is so often the case, what would look like a solution in some states would really be worse than the status quo in Vermont.

• I'd ask you to remember that we need to be honest with ourselves about what we really find objectionable: It isn't the amount of money -- or it surely isn't JUST the amount of money -- that we find objectionable. What we really object to, I think, is the idea that one or more special interests can tilt the balance and elect someone who will then be beholden to them while ostensibly serving in the public interest.

  The courts, however, have basically told us we cannot stifle the expenditure of funds by special interests. And as we try to legislate our way out of this dilemma, I would ask that we keep the purchase of influence in mind as the real evil here.

  It may be that the only way we can prohibit the special interests from buying our elections is by picking up the tab with public money.

  As I have already stated, I support public financing as a necessary measure to ensure the integrity of the political process. But I submit to you that it is merely the lesser of two evils and not a good choice in and of itself. And in that spirit, I would ask you to spend the smallest amount of public money that is absolutely necessary to ward off corruption.

• I'd ask you to remember that reporting of contributions doesn't mean a thing unless the reports are published. Our existing system leaves a lot to be desired, but even our existing system could be much more meaningful if the data we collect were immediately posted on the World Wide Web for political adversaries and the voting population in general to see.

  We would be enthusiastic about providing this service, but we cannot do it without a budget.

  It is rare that any single piece of information about campaign financing is meaningful to the voter. The truth emerges in the comparisons, in the totals, and in the trends.

  Since we serve as the state custodian of the federal filings, I can tell you that federal filings are often particularly useless, When you look at a paper filing that is 12 inches thick, you know its secrets are pretty much safe. No one will plow through such a document except perhaps a very single-minded reporter, and no reporter is without his or her deadline.

  So I would ask you, please, whatever new and improved reporting requirement you come up with, give us the staff and the technical budget to make the material available immediately, presenting the numbers on the Web for all to see.

Now as to the nitty gritty of your bill. I understand that it is being revised as we go along, but at the risk of repeating earlier comments I made, let me ask that:

1. From an administrative point of view, I would urge you to tighten up the definition of candidacy. As written in the original draft, the bill would incorporate some unfortunate elements of the current law, so that we would continue to see candidates or soon-to-be candidates calling press conferences to announce the possibility that they might announce their candidacy some time in the future.

   We have a problem with the verbal threshold -- right now, you are a candidate if you announce your candidacy. What happens to the hapless person who intends only to announce that he or she MIGHT announce -- but accidentally blurts out the magic words?

   We would prefer that the candidacy begin when the candidate files for the primary. If you wish to define the candidacy launch date in terms of an announcement, we would ask you to clearly delineate the verbal threshold that must be crossed.

2. We also have an administrative problem with the definition of an independent expenditure. We have a definition now that raises questions of -- What did the candidate know and when did he or she know it? We need a clear definition of what constitutes an independent expenditure. This is crucial to determining whether or not someone is in compliance, and some clear language would save a lot of acrimony and debate in the future.

3. We are uncomfortable with the provision to note on the ballot whether or not a candidate is participating in this proposed program. We have an undue influence statute now that bans notations. I think that while the goal may be a worthy one, we ought to think twice before doing anything that might jeopardize the purity of the ballot. I think we can rely on the media to pay close scrutiny to those candidates who fail to participate.

   I would ask that you seek the advice of the Attorney General's Office as to the Constitutionality of this aspect of the bill.

4. I would ask you to remember that this is not a partisan problem. Three of the four largest warchests in Vermont -- which are beyond your jurisdiction -- belong to Democrat Leahy, Republican Jeffords and Independent Sanders.

   Nor is this a question on which incumbents are necessarily squared off against challengers. Four years ago, I won a primary race and then defeated a well-financed incumbent for about $25,000 total.

5. I expect that you will be adjusting the numbers in the original draft of this bill if you have not already done so. There's no way EVERYONE running for EACH of the lower four statewide offices needs to EACH spend three or four times that amount. And I cannot support asking the public to pick up a tab that big.

   You all have seen some of the numbers my office came up with, demonstrating that actual expenditures for statewide races have come down in recent years. I think you have seen the letter from the Joint Fiscal Committee saying that, in effect, my numbers were (quote) very conservative (unquote).

   I would ask you not to pass a law that, in the name of limiting campaign spending, actually raises it and funds it with public money.

6. As you are well aware, your committees have two hurdles to clear before this measure goes anywhere. First you have to accept or reject the idea of asking the public to pay for elections, and, second, you have to find a mechanism for extracting the money.

7. But even more fundamentally, you need to grapple with the hard money/soft money problem, and beware of tightening up hard money more than necessary, merely out of a sense of frustration at your inability to control soft money.

   If it is any solace to you, you should know that you are not alone in experiencing this frustration. I just returned from a series of meetings in Washington with secretaries of states from across the country, and I can tell you, no one yet has solved this dilemma to their own satisfaction.

   I pledge my help and that of my staff in the coming weeks. We don't have the total solution to offer you, but we will do our best to demonstrate to you the likely consequences, good and bad, of any proposal you consider. Please let me know how we can be of help.

---

Return to top of page
E-mail questions and comments about these pages to webeditor@sec.state.vt.us