Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you. We're live. Welcome back, everyone. It's a little bit after 03:00, and we are picking up our last, agenda item of the day for committee work, which is h six eight six, an act relating to expanding identification of certain lobbying advertisements. And we are joined by the bill's sponsor, representative. Hi, representative.
[Unknown Representative (Bill Sponsor, H.686)]: Afternoon, Mr. Chair, and committee. Thank you very much for giving me time to come in. I'm here to introduce H. Six eighty six, which proposes a targeted update, very small, to two VSA two sixty four C. And that is the section of statute that governs identification and reporting of certain types of paid lobbying advertisements. Under current law, Vermont's disclosure requirements for paid lobbying ads apply only during the legislative session. In practice, that has created a loophole. In election years, well funded national advocacy organizations to the left and to the right, and right down the center, able to spend significant money outside of the session on paid advertisements that are intended to influence public opinion about candidates and policy positions without any kind of public reporting. And that kind of off session spending is often not neutral. It is designed to influence elections and legislative outcomes and avoid campaign finance disclosure and existing lobbying transparency rules. And where there is a loophole, know, why wouldn't folks if it's there to be used, why wouldn't folks use it? So H-six 86 closes that loophole. And I will note, it does not limit speech, advocacy, or political participation. It does not prohibit advertising. It very simply extends the existing identification and reporting requirements that are in to BSA two sixty four C year out, So that when paid lobbying advertisements are used to influence elections or legislative action, Vermonters can clearly see who is paying for those ads regardless of where, whether the legislature is formally in session. Here is an example of the gap that six eighty six addresses. In an election year, an organization that employed lobbyists in Vermont purchases paid digital and mail advertisements in September and October. The ads criticize or praise sitting legislators and legislative candidates. They frame policy debates and urge voters to hold officials accountable. This messaging is clearly intended to influence future legislative action and election outcomes. Because the legislature is not in session at that time, these ads are not required to identify who paid for them under current law. And even though the same organization would be required to disclose that information, if the ads ran during the legislative session. They'd be required to report it. As a result, voters see the message. Sometimes they see who, is sending the message, but there's not really any public reporting about the fact that this is happening. The spending avoids campaign finance reporting and avoids lobbying disclosure, even though it is designed to affect both. So this, H686 would not stop that example from happening. Those ads could still run. It just would require the same basic transparency year round so that Vermonters can evaluate political messages with full information about who is behind them. And that, mister chair, is my testimony.
[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you. You and I have spoken outside of the formal committee environment on this bill. I feel I come pretty well versed on our intent here. So I don't have any questions for you at the moment. I
[Robert Hooper (Member)]: just want an example. So if a postcard came in the mail and it said this candidate is doing this or not doing this, And at the bottom, there would be a disclosure that says paid for by x. So
[Unknown Representative (Bill Sponsor, H.686)]: my understanding, if you're naming specific candidates, that you're into the campaign finance section of law. So this is more, in the lobbying advertising, aspect. So a lobbyist here could, we could, let me think about an example here. Let me think about an example. Let me think about an example. So, we could have, here's one. During the session, VPRG registered lobbyists here in the building. We have a public question in front of us in the past on the bottle bill. So during the session, if they were to send out advertisements or pay for advertisements to Vermonters advocating for the bottle bill, They would have to report that as part of their lobbying disclosure. However, when the session ends, in May, if they you know, let's say it's an election year. Okay? We get into July or August or September, and now, VPERG is sending out these advertisements. And they're telling Vermonters, know, so many of these candidates, you know, are just, destroying our landfills, or whatever the case might be. And you've got to hold them accountable just on the question, the concept, but we're not talking about individual candidates. Right now, they would not have to provide any reporting about the amount that they're spending on that. And, if we were in session, they would have to provide reporting on the amount that they're spending on that. So why should we leave that loophole? Why should they not have to report? And, you know, in campaign finance, I think, this is kind of venturing into that place. But rather than really getting over complicated, let's just stop that loop. Is that
[Robert Hooper (Member)]: helpful, Robert Hango? I think so. So not specific candidates, but specific questions or issues that are out there. How does this, I'm going to go a little bit further, how does this affect other elections besides the one we hold in November for state reps, senators? Would it affect lobbying efforts around town elections that happened on town meeting day on public questions?
[Unknown Representative (Bill Sponsor, H.686)]: So I think elections is a potential effect. It's not really the problem that we're correcting. So the problem that we're correcting is really around, reporting and transparency. Transparency. Right? So these advertisements can have the effect of impacting an election or an incoming legislation legislative session. Right? So if it's happening, in the mid middle of a Biden. So it's less about, it's it's it's more about the fact that we have lobbyists, entities, lobbyists, that are buying ads to influence opinion. We, as legislators, say, well, when that's happening during the legislative sessions, we want them reporting on how much money they're spending. We should people should know. Like, we should know who's doing. It's just that we should actually know year round.
[Robert Hooper (Member)]: And I shouldn't have said town meeting because that's during the legislative session. So I
[Unknown Representative (Bill Sponsor, H.686)]: think it could be any number of different types of questions or ads or just opinions that are out there. You know? But if it's a if it's a registered lobbying entity in the state, why wouldn't we want them to just follow the same rules you're at? Thank you.
[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And like special interest groups, like things of that nature, like c three, c four, does that fall into this bucket?
[Unknown Representative (Bill Sponsor, H.686)]: Oh. That's a better question for counsel. Mister chair, I think it is.
[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Oh, he's We'll wait for council on this. Yeah, man. Any other hands for representative? That's just Bob's screen touching his beard. Okay. So I guess we'll shift over to counsel right now and ask a couple more questions after a quick chat with him. Do you wanna stay with us while we do this?
[Unknown Representative (Bill Sponsor, H.686)]: I'd be happy to. If that was a request.
[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. That was an offer.
[Unknown Representative (Bill Sponsor, H.686)]: Please stay.
[Tim Duffin (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you for having me back, committee. For the record, Tim Duffin, legislative council. Before you, you have H686, an act relating to expanding identification of certain lobbying advertisements. And it is all relative, the things relatively simple amendment and simple bill in so far as it removes the kind of time constraints on when lobbying advertisements necessarily have to be follow identification and then subsequently reporting requirements for that. So, current law says that they need to be identified during, let's say, prior to final adjournment of the biennial or adjournment legislative session. This removes that. So therefore, meaning they would be at any time the identification and when they can force it. What's not listed here is the following reporting requirements there. I was going to stop there and leave it open for questions. I can speak more broadly about authority to regulate lobbying or the difference between campaign finance and lobbying regulations.
[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, Robert Hago?
[Robert Hooper (Member)]: I guess I'd like certain lobbying advertisements defined, if that's possible. Because I can think of some off session things, like somebody buys a sign to put up at a a lobbyist buys a sign to put up at a golf tournament. Is that advertisement?
[Tim Duffin (Legislative Counsel)]: So I regret not including the rest of the statutory language, because there's a definition of provision at the very bottom, which defines advertisement and advertising campaign. With the committee's awareness, advertisement means a notice that appears in any of the following public media, radio, television, newspapers, or other periodicals or Internet websites. Advertising campaign means advertising substantially similar in nature regarding the regardless of the media in which they are placed. And then I should say the advertisements are qualified by the language following in one sorry, a one, so that the advertisement, now we know the media that exists in, has to be intended, designed, or calculated to influence legislative action or to solicit others to influence legislative action by whoever the recipient of the advertisement is, seeing it, hearing, etcetera. And that is made at any time. Okay. So again, this has to be in effort to influence legislative action, and that's roughly distinguished from electing certain individuals to office or advocating for or against public questions, things being like. Great. We went up this earlier. Thank you.
[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, so like a mailer by a lobbying entity to train an issue of the day and a position on it, things of nature?
[Tim Duffin (Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. Could be it's like, vote this way or that on bill x. Could be something more nebulous, I think, too, as far as, you know, that is items that are actively in front or being considered by legislators and that they're taking action on this operative word here. Although, I suppose it is brought up also to include, things that maybe the legislator is low legislature is likely to take up or this is intended to motivate them to take something up to us. So it's a broad range of speech. Mhmm. It is falls within the regulatable sphere of speech.
[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: It tends to influence the outcomes of policy decision making process. Yes.
[Tim Duffin (Legislative Counsel)]: And I should further say to, representative Hango's earlier question, term lobbying or lobbyists, they're all defined in different statutory sections of the same chapter. This is in two, title two legislature. Chapter 11 has to do with the registration and conduct of lobbyists as well. And there we find, you know, their gifts, limitations on those, what is a lobbying firm, what is a lobbyist, what is lobbying, what's a lobbyist, and happy to retain those into the records room. Those are in two VSA two sixty one particular definitions.
[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I wanna be conscious of the clock because we gotta be on the floor in seven minutes and travel time and all. So do we have any further questions for mister Devlin right now? I mean, yeah, that cleared a couple of things up. Okay. This is this is something I understand the the intent behind it. So I'm open to taking a little bit more testimony on this to get into the broader landscape of the as to why life was introduced. Mhmm. So that's that's just my thought on this one. Like I stated earlier, I had the opportunity to speak with them. We'd sponsor the bill a couple of times on this. Noodle on it as yourselves as individuals. And let me know or to know if you have questions, but like to take a couple of pokes at this.
[Tim Duffin (Legislative Counsel)]: And I should just say if anybody has any questions about exactly what degree state government can regulate, political speech, speech in general, happy to provide detailed analysis point. Wonderful. Alright.
[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Last call for hands? You see none. Alright, thank you, Council. Thank you, committee. That was a lot of time at this table today.
[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Oh, fun.
[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So, good morning. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Can you take us off, Nick? We