When the Vermont Senate voted 21-8 three weeks ago to ban corporate and union contributions to political candidates, chuckling broke out on the Senate floor.
Aware that many of those voting in the affirmative had long opposed such a move, Sen. David Zuckerman(P/D-Chittenden) stood up to say, “I hope the ‘yes’ votes were sincere.”
Turns out they weren’t.
On Thursday, with a much broader campaign-finance bill on the verge of final passage, the Senate dramatically reversed course, stripping that legislation of the corporate and union donation ban. This time they voted 19-11 against prohibiting such contributions.
Furious with the last-minute about-face, the ban’s chief proponent, Sen. Peter Galbraith (D-Windham), cast the lone vote against the broader campaign-finance bill, as 29 of his colleagues voted to send it to the House for consideration.
“This bill is a sham,” Galbraith said after the final vote was cast. “It is intended to persuade Vermonters that we are serious about campaign-finance reform when we are not.”
Pictured above: Zuckerman attempts to pigeonhole Sen. Ann Cummings (D-Washington) during a brief recess.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Turns out even Vermont politicians are total scum bags. Well done Mr. Baruth. I stand with you on this one.
Good for Senator Ashe, Pollina, Zuckerman, Brauth, and everyone else who consistently voted in favor of this legislation.
Shame on the Senate. I am grateful that Senators Ashe, Baruth, Fox, Pollina, Zuckerman, Galbraith, Benning, MacDonald, McCormack, and Sears remain in integrity with those who elected them. Vermont has got to put people first—our needs and those of our neighbors—NOT those of our businesses, whether local, statewide, national, or international. That cannot possibly happen if the threat of lost corporate campaign contributions is involved. If Senator Cummings thought raising funds was difficult before, just wait. I’ll remember these votes the next time I get a phone call asking for money.
Corporations, businesses and unions make useful things and provide services we need. Things like computers, electricity, movies, music, cars, bicycles, medicine and hospitals make modern life possible. They have a lot to do with why we no longer get eaten by wolves or die of old age at 23. It is too bad so many in Vermont choose to demonize them to make political hay.
Thank you folks. Just as a comment related to Tim with a T. I own an S-corp with my wife. I am not against corporations nor am I out to demonize them. However, I do not think that corporate cash pools should be used for campaign contributions. Just because one buys a soda, or juice, that does not mean you want that money used for a campaign contribution. The pooled resources of corporations are far far greater than the average person has to contribute. At some point the field needs to be leveled just a tad.
Why should a corporation have no say in how “elected” representatives govern them. Afterall, you tax these businesses and corporations… why do they not have a voice? What exactly are you afraid of?
First we demonize people for self funding there campaigns, now they are bad if they get contributions from companies. Sounds like you need to have a lot of wealthy friends or be an incumbent to get elected… sounds very much like a lot of legislators who want it make it hard for challengers.
I challenge you Mr Zuckerman and all other legislators to institute a term limit bill. 12 years for all representatives, governors, Lt Gov’s and heck, even the Supreme Court Justices.
It is up to people to decide who to elect and not to elect, when to move us out or not. The folks who tend to get far more corporate money are incumbents. If you want incumbents not to have as great an advantage then one would not want corporations to be able to give.
Certainly people who are members of the boards of corporations are allowed to give just like anyone else. The issue is whether the unlimited pockets of corporations should be allowed to give. Obviously there is a difference of opinion, that is perfectly reasonable. But my point was that I was not demonizing them as Tim was indicating we were.
As far as the ability for people to get elected, the primary place that corporate donations go are to the G and LG races as well as the PACs that the D’s (primarily) and the R’s (less so) have for the House and Senate races. This puts amazing power into the hands of the few people that control those PACs. That is part of what creates the leadership power in the Statehouse. So if you like it the way it is, leave well enough alone. If you want there to be less concentrated power and more opportunity for every day people to run, then get the corporate money out.
Also…this bill also limited the unions from being able to give directly as well. They too would need to set up separate PAC’s so that they would not be able to dig into the general kitty to donate to campaigns.
term limits are a sham. when the legislature gets flushed of all its institutional knowledge after everyone is term-limited out, only the lobbyists will be left that know their way through the system.
I do wish corporations would stay out of elections. I also do think that as they are getting regulated and taxed by the Legislature, they should have a say. That’s kinda of the basis of our government.
Get’s flushed out? Doubtful… it’s not as if the entire Legislature would turnover all at the same time.
I support 12 year term limits. If you can’t get the important topics to you and your consitituents through in that time, it’s time to step aside and give someone new a shot. The simple fact is, in VT people vote for those marked as incumbents. Most people have only a slight clue about the “big races” and have almost no knowledge of the minor races and candidates. So they vote for the Incumbents because they have already been elected once.
So the problem is uneducated voters, not the legislators themselves? why not concentrate on that? Your problem and solution aren’t lined up.
Senator Zuckerman I think you’re one of the most candid politicians in Vermont . We’ve never met but from what I know of you from the press you are no bullshitter. Anyway, I think that your efforts to get money out of politics while laudable, are doomed. Money follows power and that’s a law of nature. I’d prefer a system that is open, where money flows but we can see who is paying for what. I think, and it is only my opinion, that what you and your allies propose will only drive the cash flow underground.
Call me cynical but everytime Washington “reforms” campaign finance they simply close some doors while opening new ones- that’s how we got these superpacs.
I appreciate you and your colleagues earnest efforts but in this year’s battle the opposition clearly outmanuvered you.
“Set up, like a bowling pin
Knocked down, it gets to wearin’ thin”
Keep on truckin, maybe 2014 will be your year.
Corporations have a lot of say. If they want to influence who gets elected, the president/owner of a corporation can donate to a candidate’s campaign. Under Vermont’s current campaign finance laws, they can donate as the corporation and as an individual, in effect giving them twice as much say.
More to your point, though, once legislators are elected, corporations spend millions of dollars lobbying.
It’s a farce that politicians are against term limits.
The president has one and it works great. What are you afraid of Zuckerman?
There is no marker on the ballot stating that someone is an incumbent. So voters have to vote either by knowledge or name recognition. But it is completely up to a voter to decide who to vote for or whether to vote. Again, there is no marker as to who is an incumbent so the logic above does not work.
I am not afraid of term limits. It fact, elections are every two years and I put myself up for the voters to decide. I am very clear about my positions on just about every major issue. So if I was afraid, I would be more careful in my comments regarding positions so as not to annoy anyone.
I am not sure that term limits for President works great. There have been “good” Presidents who could have done more and “bad” Presidents who have both been limited (good and bad of course are in the eye of the beholder). But as David Crossman says above, anyone who has been in the Statehouse for some time recognizes that the Lobbyists have tremendous power and if the legislators were term limited it would give them far more power. Unless there was going to be term limits on lobbyists, then there should certainly be no limit on people who want to serve.
I am also not sure what people think they will get by having term limits imposed. There is actually a healthy amount of turnover in the legislature. In just the 10 (or maybe it was 12) years between Civil Unions and Marriage Equality there were only 30 of the 150 Representatives still in office. So there is a healthy balance of long term and short term legislators to offer long term memory and experience and new ideas. There is a large percentage who serve for 2 or 3 terms, far less than the 12 years that is recommended above. I say let the voters decide.
I agree that there should be restrictions on corporate influence in elections. But what about unions? The VTNEA has a huge influence on what goes on in VT politics and our education system – some good and some not so good. I would be interested in David’s thoughts on this. Should we restrict them also?