When a committee considers a bill, it hears testimony, discusses the bill, amends it, gets more testimony, discusses and amends yet again — lather, rinse, repeat.
After all that, when the committee is almost ready to vote on the bill, it has a markup session. This is a process of going through the bill line-by-line, raising potential issues, discussing, debating, dithering, and finalizing the language in the bill. Which they’ve gotta do because, after all, this thing might become law, and they can’t afford to overlook mistakes or unintended consequences. Still, it tries the patience of one and all.
On Wednesday, the Senate Government Operations Committee was scheduled to do markup on S.8, the ethics reform bill. Thirty-two pages of legalese.
Committee chair Sen. Jeanette White (D-Windham) is no dummy. She knew it was going to be a long, tedious afternoon. So she brought cake.
A big, moist, appealing, almost sensual triple chocolate truffle something-or-other.
Which she placed dead center on the committee table.
“Did you get that at La Brioche?” inquired Sen. Alison Clarkson (D-Windsor), name-dropping the popular Montpelier bakery.
“Nope, Shaw’s,” White replied.
Amazing what supermarkets are turning out these days.
As the committee trudged through the arcana of S.8, the cake sat there, enticing the eye, watering the mouth as it wafted out the gentle fragrance of chocolate.
Most of the discussion was both trivial and congenial, but as 3 p.m. approached, it became clear the committee was deeply divided on one question.
The committee then turned to a section covering nonprofit organizations. That “pay-to-play” provision didn’t apply to them, and Sens. Claire Ayer (D-Addison) and Brian Collamore (R-Rutland) wondered why.
Clarkson argued that nonprofits don’t have the same potential for “pecuniary gain.” Ayer and Collamore argued that while nonprofits may lack the profit motive, they clearly benefit from getting state contracts. And a lot of nonprofits get state funding. Hospitals and designated agencies, for instance. If you run a nonprofit or work for one, and you don’t get that state contract, your job could be on the line.
The debate grew heated, and it looked like Ayer and Collamore had the support of Sen. Chris Pearson (P/D-Chittenden). That would be a majority of the five-member panel.
Next, she took a strategically-ordered straw poll of the committee. She began with herself and Clarkson, two votes against applying the pay-to-play ban to nonprofits. Then she took Collamore’s vote in favor.
And then she put the question to Ayer.
If Ayer had voted with Collamore, it seemed likely that Pearson would follow suit. The debate would go on. The cake would remain untouched.
Ayer backed down. She voted with Clarkson and White. Pearson quickly followed. Game, set, match.
Recess.
Cake!
Full disclosure: slices of cake were offered to everyone in the room, including two reporters — yours truly and Mark Johnson of VTDigger.org. We both accepted.
And it tasted even better than it looked. Deeeeeee-lish.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
As usual, a Senate bill will have to be fixed in the House! Some things never change.
Not sure why the non-profit thing became an issue at all.
Under federal law, a 501c3 is not allowed to make any political contributions. So while a for-profit business can contribute to a gubernatorial campaign, the non-profits that contract with the state don’t have the same potential conflict of interest.
terjeanderson, the statute would have applied to principals of a non-profit i.e. those in management positions. Also 501c3’s are only prohibited from making contributions to federal races. Those federal requirements to not apply to state and local races.
Ben Kinsley — tax law and the IRS regulations do apply prohibit non-profit involvement in all political campaigns, not simply federal ones.
“Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to all campaigns including campaigns at the federal, state and local level…” https://www.irs.gov/uac/election-year-acti…
As for prohibiting individuals in management positions at non-prfots from making contributions if their organizations receive contracts, I personally have a problem with that kind of restriction on political involvement but, yes, I can understand why the legislature would consider it.
Terje Anderson:
All 501(c)(3) organizations are non-profit, but not all non-profit organizations are 501(c)(3). See https://www.opensecrets.org/527s/types.php for lots of other types, many of which CAN make political contributions.
In addition, there are more than a few (c)(3) organizations which have legally separate organizations closely associated with them. During the last campaign, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund ran ads attacking Phil Scott, for example. It is legally and technically NOT the same organization as Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.
Jon Greenberg – yes, as someone who has spent my life working in non-profits, I understand that not all “non-profits” are 501c3. But the kinds of other organizations that can participate in politics (501c4s, etc) would not be in a position to get a state contract for providing services. (If a group that is a 527 or other advocacy group is getting a state contract, that would be a huge scandal).
And, because those other organizations (whether Planned Parenthood Action Fund or an private industry lobbying group like AIV) are legally separate, they would not be covered by a law like this.