Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: We are live. Alright, everyone. Welcome back. 01:15 ish on the February 6, and our post lunch work is going to begin with a flyby on H-five 78, an act relating to penalties and procedures for animal cruelty offenses. We have a lead sponsor and counsel with us, and we're going to start off with the lead sponsor, Representative Krasnow. Good to

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow]: see you, representative. You too. This is my first time, before your committee. You haven't govpped before? No. I mean, I hang out. I know I

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: can see you at Rosie.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow]: But this is my first time. So for the record, Representative Emily Krasno, Chittenden and I in South Burlington. And, thank you to the honorable committee members, for having me today. So I'm just gonna, not take up too much of your time and do a brief, kind of intro on why I introduced this bill, then Eric's going to talk about, the sections that pertain to your committee. So, thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. I'm here to talk about H-five 78, which addresses animal cruelty and the penalties for those who perpetrate such heinous acts. As someone who grew up in Vermont surrounded by animals and raised by a single mother, I understand the profound connection between humans and animals. My mother, despite the challenges that she faced, always found room in our hearts and home to adopt animals in need. We frequently took in dogs, farm animals, and others who deserved a second chance at life. I remember the joy of having up to six rescue dogs at once, each one a part of our family, each one deserving of safety, love, and care. This experience shaped my view of animals as being worthy of our protection and compassion. We must be the voice for animals who cannot advocate for themselves. As a society, we are their voice, and it is our responsibility to protect our most vulnerable who are unable to defend themselves. This proposed bill is important because it addresses both the immediate suffering of animals and the need for lasting change. It proposes stronger regulation on future animal ownership, which prevent individuals continuing to exploit or harm animals. We must recognize that animal cruelty is not an isolated issue. It often connects to larger patterns of abuse that affect both animals and humans. And it is vital that we not only prosecute animal cruelty, but also take measures to stop future abuse from occurring. H-five 78 represents a chance to ensure that animals are treated with dignity respect they deserve. It will provide the necessary legal framework to hold abusers accountable, prevent further cruelty, and protect animals from suffering at the hands of those who should not be caring for. I urge you to support this bill. It is not just about the animals. It is about creating a society that values compassion, respect, and justice for all living beings. Thank you so much for your time and consideration of this crucial legislation. And, I'm so grateful for the work that your many committee members, have done, on animal welfare. And so I know that you're also looking at legislation, around animal welfare. And I think that they're really very as Eric has mentioned, I have been watching the testimony on the other bill in this committee, and they're very compatible, and the work and showing up for, I consider animals our constituents as well. So we're standing up for our animal constituents. So as mentioned, and I think Vice Chair Hango mentioned as well, there has been extensive testimony upstairs, on this bill, and, it's going really well. The pieces that we're looking at today that Eric will walk you through have been unchanged by the committee. And so he's I'll let Eric do the talking on that. But there's a few pieces that have to do with government operations, adding rulemaking authority to the division of animal welfare and expand the animal welfare fund to be able to accept security paid in civil animal forfeiture cases. And Eric will walk you through that language. So essentially, what that means is, one of the pieces of the bill is when, animals are seized, We want to have Lisa, who's been in your committee quite a bit, be able to have the authority to have those funds come into the,

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I was just going to call

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow]: it the animal fund, but the animal welfare fund. So those are kind of the pieces that because the director position is under your jurisdiction, she'll be able to If we had that money going willy nilly, it's not even a word anymore, going willy nilly everywhere, So it was really in the contained space. And so it would be under Lisa's authority. And she has testified several times on the bill in judiciary as well. So now I would love, if anyone has any questions for me before Eric really does the pieces that you can ask him about. But I'd love to open that up, Honorable Chair.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, you have questions for the member? Crickets. We will just skip over to council then, guess.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow]: All right, well, thank you so much. And again, as I mentioned, I'm so grateful for the work that you all have been doing on these issues. And I think that it's great that Vermont is really stepping up for this constituency that so many people care about all across Vermont. I hear from folks in all parts of Vermont who are grateful that we're taking up these bills. So thank you. Our esteemed council

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: voting block.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow]: No, it's true. They can't vote, but there are storms.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Counsel, yes.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Can I ask a question first before

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone]: you start? Thank

[Unidentified Committee Member]: you. Rep Krasnow just said that there's a that this bill asks for rulemaking authority for animal welfare director and does some stuff and put the money for the animal welfare fund. Right. And I believe that age eight forty one also does the same thing.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Is there a reason to have it in two places? Is there Is it the same language of both of them?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, it's not the same language. So that's why I think from our perspective, I say our, I mean, Ledge Council. This happens sometimes, that you have multiple committees making amendments to the same section of law, not same language or even necessarily the same specific topic, but they're working within the same section. So what we do amongst ourselves, in this case, often it's one of the counsel attorney keeping in touch with another one because they're two different bills. In this particular case, they're both my bills. So I can check-in with myself any time and see, oh, yeah, do I remember what happened in that area?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: It's my own best collaborator.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Collaboration will be easier that way. But but the, the provisions, although they're in the same sections, address different things. And so the way we ordinarily do that in in our offices, we have the stat the authority and statute to harmonize these things after they pass. So as long as they're not contradictory, which they're not in this case. But if that were the case, that would be a problem.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But otherwise now that doesn't mean you can't put them in the same language in both places if you wanted to, just in case. But it but it's funny that that like, it wouldn't sometimes we'll do that because you want language to be certain that it passes. But in this case, like, you wouldn't want but, again, for some reason, the animal cruelty bill upstairs doesn't pass, then you wouldn't want their provisions that are in, the rulemaking and the division of animal welfare. You wouldn't want them to pass on their own because they're dependent on stuff that's in that other bill that's in age five seventy eight, similar to your vote. In age 41, You know, the specifics of the rulemaking and the authority of and the animal welfare fund are all sort of dependent on other parts of your bill. So you wouldn't they wouldn't pass standalone. So it's almost makes sense in that respect, as I said out loud. Keep them in their own bills for now. I'll keep an eye on both.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Trust yourself.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, I will. Not always. And then I think going forward, I think that way you'll make sure that whatever passes in the end is consistent. Okay. The idea. But you're right to flag it because that's exactly what I was gonna mention in my testimony. Oh. I know totally. So, yes, Eric Fitzpatrick with the Office of Budget Head Council. As representative Krasno mentioned, there's a detailed animal cruelty bill that's been discussed for quite a while up in the House Judiciary Committee. For the most part, it deals with, like 98% of it, deals with the criminal code and the crimes of cruelty to animals, aggravated cruelty to animals. It expands the definition of cruelty to animals in a number of ways. I don't think I'm into details of that now, but that's what happens in the big picture, expanding the type of conduct that can be criminally prosecuted. It also expands there's there's a list right now of, in addition to criminal sanctions, other types of penalties that a court can impose on somebody who's been convicted of one of these crimes, like forfeiting their animal, not being able to possess the animal in the future, having to submit to random inspections, that kind of thing. So it's all existing, but it's worked on and expanded in the House sorry, the House Judiciary Bill, which is five seventy eight. The piece that's relevant to you folks, there's a third sort of big picture thing going on in that other bill, and that has to do with forfeiture proceedings in the civil context. So under existing law, the way it works is, and similar to you might have automobiles can be forfeited. Proceeds related to drug crimes can be forfeited. There's other, civil forfeiture proceedings in place in the law. This one involves, forfeiting animals when a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that there's been a criminal violation. So it doesn't require conviction of the crime. You can have this separate forfeiture proceed. And that piece is also being worked on as part of the House Judiciary Committee's bill. What's going on with that piece that that brings in some statutes in title 20? The proposal that they're looking at is to add a element of the forfeiture proceeding, which is requiring the person who owns the animal to provide some security, basically a bond, some money. Because the issue they're trying to address is an animal gets forfeited. I'm sure this committee's aware of this from its work in this subject area over the last few years. An animal gets forfeited, and there's gonna be a period of time there, assuming a criminal prosecutor, so somebody's gonna have to housing him and pay for expenses of care. Many times, there's gonna be expensive veterinary bills. There's gonna be cost of feeding him, housing him, all that sort of thing. And one of the major problems that subject matter, that is associated with the subject matter is, if the animal, to make it forfeited, the person gets convicted, who pays those costs? That's become very financially prohibitive for humane societies, animal rescue organizations, groups like that that are running into financial problems because they have these forfeited animals that they can't pay to care for. So that's one of the problems they're trying to address, is how can they get some of that money so they have this security process. So if somebody gets their animal seized, they are supposed to pay security in the beginning if they want a challenge. If don't want a challenge, they don't have to pay me. That's fine. But if they do want a challenge a forfeiture in court, then they have to pay some security. So that's the background. Why is that relevant to Title 20? Because, as Representative Krasno mentioned, the process that they're proposing to set up is that the security is submitted first to the court, and the court then transmits it to the Division of Animal Welfare. And the Director of Animal Welfare is then the person who's responsible for making the security payments out to the Humane Society, or to the rescue organization, or to whoever it is that's been caring for the animal and has been incurring these costs. In order to do that, obviously, they have to have some place to put the money. And that's why the Animal Welfare Fund also has an amendment in the bill, because the money goes to the division that then places it in the Animal Welfare Fund. And it's then, as I said, distributed to people that are incurring these costs. So those two things, the fund and the division, and the other piece is that the division of animal welfare has to come up with rules as to how that whole process is going to work, and even a schedule. Because they were talking about how much it costs to care for an animal is going to depend on what type of animal it is, how old the animal is, do they need veterinary care. So the the director is also supposed to have a schedule, of how much depending on all day. So that also has to be done by rule. So if you think for a moment back to the bill that I walked this committee through a couple of weeks ago, H eight forty one, representative Waters Evansville, that also had some amendments to the rule making authority or proposals to establish rule making authority and to the fund. And those, proposals, basically gave the division general authority to adopt rules and specifically about, outdoor cats. Remember that they had to do rules on outdoor cats? And on the certified rabies vaccinator program. So those are the two things they had to do rules on. And with respect to the animal welfare fund, remember a couple of other pieces that were in that bill, H eight forty one. One was tax checkoff. Remember, so people can do a tax checkoff and have their money donated to to the animal welfare fund. So that had to be put in the fund also, so they could hold that money to people who the checkoff and donations or gifts. So those two things were added. So the same statutes in the actually, issue I was looking at, five seventy eight, also allow the animal welfare fund to hold an additional, type of, revenue, which is security posted in animal forfeiture proceedings. As I just described, that too, that gets added to the list. And their rulemaking authority is also added to deal with these types of payments, collection and payment of security in developing a schedule. So it's in the same statute, it's even adding other elements to the list. But they're in addition to the elements that you folks have proposed to add in your bill. So it'd be easily reconciled, which is what our office would do. Assuming they passed in different bills, we'd reconcile them later on. So supplementary, but not contradictory or in any way problematic. But it's good for you folks to know, because obviously they're proposed amendments to statutes that are in your jurisdiction, title 20. That's kind of That's the summary. The sections as far In the in the house, in May, the house judiciary vote, There was our section six and seven, the very last two pages of the bill, page thirty and thirty one. So section six is the rulemaking authority for the division. And that's having to do specifically with receipt and management of security posted in animal forfeiture proceedings, as I mentioned, and to make distributions and reimbursements from the fund for animal organizations that provide custody. And then over on page 31, subdivision three, the fund shall consist of and it proposes to add security that's posted in animal forfeiture proceedings and transferred to the fund by the court. So those additions would be in addition to the ones that are in your bill, should that one pass as well.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Did I see that?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Oh, yeah, I was just, I didn't have a question. I was just going to say quite obviously, I'm fine with both of those things.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: Thank

[Rep. Kate Nugent]: you. If this decision, the forfeiture, is not appealed, then whatever is in the statute that we're building in this committee will take over for an animal that's going into the care of someone other than its owner.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You mean the regulations on those organizations? Like the statute that you guys are working on that has to do with whether it's, the Division of Animal Welfare has the opportunity, I think the authority, if I remember correctly, to inspect those organizations, that sort of thing. Anything that's related to the governance of those organizations, yes, absolutely, would

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: be. In

[Rep. Kate Nugent]: terms of the house judiciary bill, if an animal is being seized, the owner does not appeal forfeiture of that animal, its care, would be covered under what we're working on in this committee with the Division of Animal Welfare.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I think the organizations that care for them are within the statutory chapter that you folks have. I just wanted

[Rep. Kate Nugent]: to make sure that that animal was going to be taken care of, even if its owner didn't contest the forfeiture, didn't pay a security fund.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's right. Thank you. Sure.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I'm just scanning with some more time. Sure. No, I mean, it's pretty clear to me what the boards are doing. Right. If I have any direct questions for you. Sure. I think it's more of a question for the gallery. Yes. Do you have a timeline when or idea of when the judiciary committee is going to try and wrap things up?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow]: Yeah. So, Terrell alone has indicated, I believe to me, I don't know about you, He's hoping to only have maybe two more drafts, but we're very close. What ended up happening, as we all know, as members of the Sistine body, is sometimes you can open up some stuff. And so they really wanted to make sure they got it right. And so it opened up some different things. Yes, it's my understanding that they will be moving this bill within the next week.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right? I think that's the goal. Goal is

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow]: to get it out so they can live on to other things. Okay.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone]: So within a week.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So I'm personally comfortable with the language as it reads here. The purpose of the bus, just doing a fly by on it. Does anybody have any concerns over the words, the two sections we're taking a look at?

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: Okay,

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: so That's nice.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can certainly let you know if for some reason those sections get changed. Yeah, let us know and

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: we'll reevaluate it. Yeah, I do respect for the process and knowing that chair Lamoille wants to get this thing moving. I'll ask for a straw poll on these two sections, six and seven. Thumb is favorable. Alright, so that is was that seven, four or seven zero four. Thank

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow]: Thank you. You. Thank you so much for

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: your time.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes. No. Of course. And thank you, counsel.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Absolutely. Any other questions? Let me know. Certainly will. Alright.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. So have a

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: good weekend, you guys.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow]: Have a good weekend, enjoy your Super Bowl Sunday if you so celebrate.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes. I just had to talk to the press about that.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: Sport.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Exactly. That portfolio.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Check them links?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Dude, that's actually what I do for the Super Bowl. I don't gamble. I make the blinks. Alright. So that one wraps that one up. And so up next, we are, doing witness testimony on a bill we did a walk through introduction walk through last week. H six eight six enact relating to expanding identification of certain lobbying advertisements. So I guess we'll just go down the list in order if that's okay with everyone. We'll start off with Laura Hooper, Deputy Secretary of State.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Are you Okay if I bring up Cheaching?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I was just going to ask if you two would let Awesome. You Let's do this.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: And we have a meeting in two.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Oh, yes. No, let's get you moving.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Good

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: afternoon, Lauren Hooper, Deputy Secretary of State. Thank you so much for having us in today. I'm very fortunate to be joined by

[Sean Cheahan (Director of Elections and Campaign Finance, VT SOS)]: Sean Cheahan, Election Strict at Secretary of

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: We love doing this double time.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And unfortunately

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: for Sean, I don't do it only with him.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: Oh,

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: no, no. We are here only. And luckily, it's the last minute. Don't

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: forget to try that.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: So we are here to testify in support of this bill from our perspective. And I'm going to ask Sean in a minute to talk a little bit about our office's role in lobbying activity. But from our perspective, we want to make sure that there's transparency. And I think this bill achieves that. There's just one potential issue that I want to flag, and I'm aware that there's a potential amendment. So, if there's an amendment language before you, we would just want to have the opportunity to review that and make sure that it will work from a logistics standpoint, from an IT standpoint, and that we all understand that. I also would encourage this committee to consider having the attorney general's office testify on this bill to make sure that it's enforceable. Everything is in this chapter needs to be enforced by the attorney general's office. So I think their perspective is really important. And the one thing that I think you may want to hear from our office about, again, is the impact on campaign finance. If lobbying activity is extended for the entire year, which is what this bill does, Typically, lobbyists do not contribute to candidates during this lobbying season. So I want to just understand a little bit more where that prohibition is, whether it's just practice or whether it is more expressly laid out in the law. I don't think that's the intent of this bill, to restrict campaign finance donations for the entire year for lobbyists. And if it were, that would be probably problematic with Citizens United. So I want to understand the origin of that. I haven't had time, really even the opportunity for Sean, even the opportunity to talk to Sean, he just came back from his national conference. So I want to dig into that, and we may want to either create an exception somewhere in the law that allows for lobbyists to give to campaigns when the legislature is not in session, or find out where that is in campaign finance law and modify that. I don't think the intent is to prohibit lobbying lobbyists from contributing to candidate campaigns. But I just want to explore that a little bit more.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Totally understood, and that's a clear directive for us today, get into it a little bit more with understanding.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: I thought Sean might just want to talk about our role in lobbying and what we do in our system. Sure. Absolutely. So our

[Sean Cheahan (Director of Elections and Campaign Finance, VT SOS)]: my division, the elections division, the division of in charge of elections, campaign finance, and and lobbying. We had three systems for each of them. All three systems got new launches last year. Know up to this table are we most familiar with the campaign finance system there and with the election management system. But the lobbying system was also launched last January with our goal being to increase transparency, lobbyists to to report their required activity and for the public to be able to search for that activity by lobbyists, other types of searches. From reading the bill, is it? Understand it? The lobbying system would be able to support it. Certainly the year round and the components there would just be changing, changing the directions, changing the guide, changing how we instruct users to use it. And as the deputy secretary said, if there's other amendments too, we're happy to look at those, but we feel comfortable that the system is working well, and we can make tweaks as needed to comport with law.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: The only piece there that I'll add is if there's large adjustments, it will have a fiscal impact on our office. So that's just the piece that we need to understand. We're now in the maintenance phase of our contract with our lobbying system, which means when we're making changes, not to get too IT technical, but it's a change request, and there's a dollar amount attached to that. We haven't explored what that will be, No, if

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: that's not too wonky. That's completely understood and appreciated as a reality, you running your shop. So I respect that. Yes. We at least looked

[Sean Cheahan (Director of Elections and Campaign Finance, VT SOS)]: at the bill at the way of just changing the date to not be in the session. There wouldn't be any change to your questions until we confirm that. That's that part is no fault.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: But any other noodling could have a ripple effect?

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: It would be really, if you if there was specificity required on types of activity that were searchable or reportable as designated fields, that would be adding factors that we would need to explore. Understood.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: Rosario, Nugent.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Could you talk a little

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: bit more about the specific way that you were thinking that this might require So it's just notification. It's not prohibition on spending. It's just applying the same On lobbying spending? Yes, there's no prohibition in this bill in expanding the time of notification to the state of lobbying activity. It's not a prohibition at all. The piece that am a little concerned about, want to explore more, and I hesitate to even bring it up because I haven't done my due diligence, is on campaign finance spending by lobbyists. Because lobbyists, I believe historically, and I don't believe it's prohibited, but do not contribute to any of your campaigns while the legislature is in session, because it would be seen as lobbying. -Yeah. So I just want to make sure that we don't inadvertently make it so lobbyists can't ever contribute to any of your campaigns. I would assume that while some people would say that's very good, other people, including the Supreme Court, would say that's very bad. So I just want to make sure that we are not getting our state sued. So

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I believe that there should be a space where lobbyists can use their power to contribute to your campaigns under the law. And there are the sections that speak to GIFs and the pieces on on that side, which obviously the law here change on its face wouldn't impact that. Think as deputy secretary says this is the first we've seen seen each

[Sean Cheahan (Director of Elections and Campaign Finance, VT SOS)]: other in two weeks. Always always seeing us together. It might be hard to hard to believe we haven't seen it in two weeks.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Haven't seen each other.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Like like within the like that conversation, like, if there are a rebel to be a good opportunity to have counsel walk the committee through some of that stuff, just because we haven't really dealt into that in a long time, just our knowledge base. I

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: just want to

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone]: say it is in statute. It is in statute. Yes, a subsection two sixty

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: six.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I thought it was statute.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone]: It says you registered lobbyist, a lobbyist employer, or a lobbying firm may not make or promise to make a political campaign contribution to a legislator, a legislator's candidate committee, or a legislative leadership political committee. And it goes on.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: So that would make it, the entire year would not be able to do that. Correct. And so that you may wanna make an amendment to that section. That's it is.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I remember that being a conversation in COVID at year one, where the session ran deep into the fall against the election cycle, where that was a mechanism that restricted. Constrained.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Yes, counsel, and we're happy to come back again on that specific issue since we oversee lobbying and candidates. Of course. And thank you, Rep Stone, for doing that legislative research. What poll

[Sean Cheahan (Director of Elections and Campaign Finance, VT SOS)]: is it?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I could not do.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes, Representative Hooper of Burlington.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: So would a gabble panning for out of session, no matter whether spending time on a subcommittee or anything else that has you?

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Currently, because of the way that the lobbying activity needs to be reported, it's in session. And that's what this bill is seeking to modify. And the restriction is no reportable lobbying activity to a candidate. And so because the reportable lobbying activity is the session, and so the section that Rep. Stone just read doesn't expressly say, In the session, I don't believe. But because the reportable lobbying activity is in the session, if you read those two together, lobbyists cannot give to candidates during the session, the way the law is currently. But the way this bill proposes, it removes in the session and makes it all the time. You have to report lobbying activity, which, again, we support. But we just want to make sure that the campaign finance ripple effects are considered. And certainly, if the intent is to prohibit lobbyists from ever contributing to candidates, I would just caution against that because of Citizens United.

[Sean Cheahan (Director of Elections and Campaign Finance, VT SOS)]: I believe someone can confirm it in front of me, but I believe February does break out contributions from other forms of

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: It does.

[Sean Cheahan (Director of Elections and Campaign Finance, VT SOS)]: Gifts and other forms of activity. So it may already be covered in that, I think, as deputy secretary of St. Louis want to look at it and make sure it's changed. So

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: I just want to make sure it's governed by the session and not for the individual.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: I believe so. But again, this thought of this concern honestly really came in the last half an hour as I was thinking about what we were going to say. Was testifying in another committee in this time. So the nature of the day today.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Representative Stone.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone]: No, there's a lot of gray area here, and I support you in saying that the attorney general should come in here for a variety of reasons. But would it be you who could answer, what is the difference between a campaign ad and a lobbying ad?

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: A campaign ad. A campaign ad versus a lobbying ad. A campaign ad is for a candidate or cause, and a lobbying is with the intent to persuade the legislature.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone]: But what about a campaign, or can an ad about a bill that names the legislature look like Keith Payne ad? I mean, I'm just thinking. Been in some of those where it's like about H123, then they list me, and I'm like, Okay, well, that lobbying? Is that campaign act? Would that be you or Charity who would decide?

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: If somebody made a complaint, we refer it to Attorney General, authority Clark. Yes, that would like to

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: three or more candidates in publications or anything.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: I'm going to say that I'd like us to come back and answer these questions because you're asking adept with questions that we're not prepared to answer.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: You, Secretary. I had a great thought bubble on the way into the room. Let's refine the questions.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Yeah, think this is We should have a partnership on these questions. And I think these are really valid questions, and ones that we try and answer every day. But again, we haven't we weren't prepared to do that. Yeah. We'd like to, we would love to answer their questions.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Just want

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to make

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: sure that we're giving the right answers.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'll hold my questions till we can get, because it was essentially the same thing of, if you have a lobbying group that says these candidates supported this bill, is that campaigning or lobbying? Because if I didn't ask them to use my picture, say, if I'm on it and you're on it and you're on it, we're all on it and they said, these

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: these representatives did this. And then that could be

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And please support them. Or But don't support them. Us or don't support them. Yeah. I mean, right That's more likely. Yeah. Is it can't And it depends. Don't support them means you're campaigning for the opposition.

[Sean Cheahan (Director of Elections and Campaign Finance, VT SOS)]: Right. And depending on who it is that's funding that ad, it could be if it's a coordinated with the opposition, it would be through that candidate. If it was through a party, it could be that if it was not affiliated, then it could be an independent expenditure only committee in that sense. And so we stay. But it's certainly getting into the campaign finance side from the realm that you said when you're talking about candidates and clearly directing people to support or oppose those candidates, regardless of who's funding it, going to fall into the campaign finance chapter.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Because if I didn't ask for or, you know, or,

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: you know,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: right. Yeah.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: Do we have

[Sean Cheahan (Director of Elections and Campaign Finance, VT SOS)]: No. You weren't. That's when it would be the independent.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I wanna be conscious of the elections. He's a curious time doing, but Alright. 02:00 clock. I'm going on. I think the immortal words of David Hall, the only thing we know for certain

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is the list of hypotheticals seemingly

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: endless. Endless. That is true. We rely on the brilliance of David Hall every day

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in our office. I miss relying on that brilliance.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: But I think we hear the essence of both of your questions, all three of your questions, and we'll do some research and come back. And I think also the attorney general's Yeah, don't want it to all fall on you because

[Unidentified Committee Member]: that's So a gray

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: we got to talk to our counsel. We got to talk to the AG. Yeah, yeah, There's So we'll try. So we've to square the peg. Yep.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: All right.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Thank you so much for having us.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: You. You. Happy Friday. It feels like a good evening, Fri yay. Fri yay. I agree with that actually.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: You. Yeah, come on

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: up. Good to see you, Ben.

[Ben Edgerly Walsh (VPIRG)]: Good to see you. For the record, Ben and Julie Walsh with the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, or VPIRG. I have a few slides that I'll share in a moment, but I wanted to just briefly speak to a couple of the questions that came up. Obviously, you'll hear from others, including your counsel. But in particular, around the prohibition on contributions from lobbyists to candidates or solicitation from candidates to lobbyists. That is also tied in, as you noted, to BSA section two sixty six to final adjournment, cna DA. The statute that six eighty six contemplates is also tied to final adjournment, but they're not tied to each other. So if six eighty six passed as introduced, it does not touch that prohibition on contributions or solicitation, because that is an entirely separate part of the statute and would continue to exist as it does today. That's my understanding, so you can hear from others on.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: So are you talking about the infirmity post sexual caveat or considering that adjournment did that?

[Ben Edgerly Walsh (VPIRG)]: I can tell you what it says in statute. When general assembly is in session until adjournment seen ADA, and I would suggest you hear from Councillor of the AG's office precisely what they interpret that time. But let me pull up my let me see and I gotta share my screen. Can I have permission to share my screen?

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: Alright. Here we go. Okay.

[Ben Edgerly Walsh (VPIRG)]: So I want to briefly go through from VPERCs perspective the problem or issue that H. Six eighty six is solving for, and then touch on a couple of other related issues or clarifications that we would suggest you consider as part of this same bill as potential amendments. So one, what is this trying to solve for? You've already heard about this, so I won't belabor the point extensively. But obviously what this amends is the advertising lobbying disclosure part of the statute. And in particular it removes the phrase at any time prior to final adjournment of a biennial or during legislative session, just leaving at any time. Essentially the problem that exists as we see it in current law is from final adjournment of the second year of a biennium through when you gavel in for the next biennium, there is no transparency around lobbying advertising. The typical requirement that if you spend $1,000 or more in something that is defined as lobbying and advertising, then you have to report in forty eight hours that you did that ceases to exist after final adjournment happens. And just looking at the last biennium as one example, that's almost a third of all of the days in that two year period. Obviously, it varies a little bit depending on veto sessions and all of that, but it's a substantial portion of time. And obviously, lobbyists, lobbying firms, etcetera, can still be doing things to try to influence legislative action, either in the subsequent biennium or if the governor brings the legislature back, which obviously can happen. So the core of this bill, we believe, is a very good idea and would bring more transparency and more public awareness, and awareness of, you know, legislators yourself about who is trying to influence what. A couple of, actually three additional things that I wanted to flag that are related to this part of statute. One, this statute was last updated in 2015. And as you all know, how people communicate generally in the world and about legislation has evolved a lot in the last ten, eleven years. And as we read the statute, there probably are some types of lobbying advertising that are not currently included. In particular, the phrase or internet websites jumped out at us as we were reviewing this. I think if you asked the average American is logging on to the YouTube app on your phone going to an internet website, you'd get a variety of answers. And a lot of people would probably say an app is not a website. So just for real clarity, we're proposing a few edits here. There are a couple of other similar definitions in other parts of law, including an electoral reporting law. And so looking at some of those things that could be very explicitly included that perhaps are being interpreted to be included now, but could be very clearly laid out are mass mailings, robotic phone calls, robocalls, and then or paid internet communications to just be very clear or paid electronic communications would be another way of saying it, that anything in that space counts. You're not talking about like, yes, you need to report the Facebook ads on somebody's internet browser on their laptop because that's a website, but no, you don't have to report the ones that are going to an app on their phone because maybe that's not a website. That seems like unnecessary ambiguity and really if this part of statute exists, it should be fairly all encompassing of the paid advertising for lobbying purposes. The next one is right now, and these are advertising disclosures that VPRG as an organization certainly files sometimes, we also look at other entities filings because we want to understand the playing field of what's going on and who's trying to influence who on what. And there is a phrase in the law that is right now very vague and results in vague and inconsistent reporting, even when it does apply. And that's this, the end of this section requires the reporting to include a brief description of the advertisement or advertising campaign. And the phrase a brief description is the only thing that is required in terms of what the description entails. So it leaves entirely up to the lobbyist or lobbying firm to decide what a brief description should mean. And I just looked a handful of filings from the last two, three years, and here are some of the examples of what a brief description meant to the people making these filings. Some are clear enough. Ads in support of renewable energy standard, ad campaign opposing Act 18. Okay, we know basically what those are about. Online advertising. Advertising with VT Digger, which was in a filing where someone was paying VT Digger, so really didn't provide any additional information beyond what you already knew by the fact that the filing existed at all. And then just email blast. So if the idea is transparency, that phrase, a brief description, we would argue is insufficient to actually provide transparency about these activities. So we looked at a few other states' statutes and consulted with some of our colleagues and are putting this out as a possible way of requiring a little bit more information in a way that would not actually, we believe, although you should hear from them directly, require any additional work on the Secretary of State's part. They wouldn't need to change their form other than maybe changing some guidance, but they wouldn't need to add additional fields to enter information on the form because you could just drop it in the same place that you're putting a brief description now. So we would suggest including the language, including the bills or issues it is focused on, and whether the advertisement or advertising campaign expresses support, opposition, or neutrality on the bills or issues. So that you have some clear guidance as to what information we are trying to be as a state transparent about. And then the last one, and this goes to a different part of the statute, this is in the definition section of the lobbying chapter of 2VSA, and this is the definition of lobbying, which you would look at when you're trying to figure out to the earlier conversation what's a lobbying expense, what's maybe an electoral expense but not a lobbying expense. What's highlighted in red here is language and this was last updated in 2007, I believe. That is maybe a little bit internally inconsistent and also, I would argue, potentially misses some things that in this day and age could be fairly common lobbying activities. So, directly, so this is in A, communication that a lobbyist would be doing orally or in writing. So that's what lobbying is what's covered in lobbying. And then down at the bottom, it's more like a group like VPER hosting an event for our members and giving them the opportunity to communicate with their legislators. And there it just says orally, it doesn't include and or in writing. So we would suggest striking both in A, the phrase orally or in writing, and in D, the word orally. One, so that those two are consistent. And two, because there are other types of communication that arguably are not either orally or in writing, that certainly could be lobbying. You can take a picture of a member holding a sign that clearly indicates a position and that's not orally or in writing. You could send a video message. Maybe that's orally. It's a little bit ambiguous. Obviously communicate with any, without any sort of additional verbiage in there clearly encompasses any form of communication. And from our perspective, both as, an organization interested in transparency and one that does lobbying, any form of communication that meets this definition of trying to influence legislative action should be included in the definition of what lobbying is. So those are the three additional suggestions we have beyond our strong support for the underlying concept in the bill. And I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any questions for Ben? On the slide deck? I I will say, like, thank you for those flags. It's appreciated. So we'll discuss that with council as we look at this more. Thank you very much.

[Ben Edgerly Walsh (VPIRG)]: Yeah. I appreciate the opportunity.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, hello. It's been a while.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Hello,

[Lauren Hierl (VNRC)]: everyone. For the record, my name is Lauren Hurl, and I'm the Executive Director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council, the NRC, and really appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of H-six 86 today to close this loophole around lobbying disclosures. And for those not familiar and haven't had the pleasure of being in this committee for a while, VNRC is the oldest statewide nonprofit environmental group. Our mission is to promote a healthy environment and resilient communities for all Vermonters today and into the future. And prior to my time at VNRC, was the Executive Director of Vermont Conservation Voters for more than a decade. And in that role, did an extensive amount of both lobbying and electoral work. So have spent many, many, many hours with the campaign finance system, with the lobbying disclosure system, with lawyers, and trying to sift through these areas of laws. I wanted to share just a couple examples of how this is playing out and why we think this is a good step forward in terms of really making sure that our system is not leaving Vermonters in the dark about who is trying to communicate with them and trying to influence their positions on various issues that people care about. So to share one specific example, and you might have already heard this one, but in the twenty twenty four elections, we were getting word from a number of members all over the state who were sending us pictures of these postcards that they were getting from a group called Americans for Prosperity, an out of state lobbying company largely funded by the fossil fuel industry. And every group, of course, does and should have the right to communicate with their perspectives with Vermonters. But we were not seeing clear and comprehensive reports of all of this activity that we're getting info in from all over the state that's happening. So we didn't know where they were being sent, what they were trying to communicate, who was getting them, how extensive this campaign was. These messages were being sent during election season. But because they were not specifically saying to vote for a specific candidate or against a specific candidate, they were really falling into this gray area of our laws. And as you've been hearing, because we are in that window when lobbying isn't reported, they also didn't need to be reporting it as a lobbying expenditure. And so we were just very in the dark about what was happening. During the same election, Vermont Conservation Voters Action Fund ran a series of ads that similarly did not name any candidates, were not saying to support or oppose a specific candidate, But we're looking to educate voters on climate issues. And for us, it felt really clear that our communication could potentially influence the election, because this is an electoral issue of interest of voters. So we felt really an obligation to report it as an electioneering expense. The campaign finance system isn't really set up for that kind of reporting. It's all built around tying it to a specific candidate who you're trying to support or oppose. And so we did this jerry rigged reporting where we were trying to put it up because we were like, this clearly should be known to Vermonters that we're doing this. We would hope other people would be reporting. But it didn't seem like we were obligated to report based on what we were looking at, and seeing that these other lobbying efforts were happening and were not being reported similarly. So if age six eighty six were to go into effect, we could have reported that campaign potentially as a lobbying expenditure, and then Vermonters would at least know who's doing this communicating and what type of ads they're running and understand who's out there trying to communicate with them any time of year, including during election seasons. And really just fundamentally believe that we all have the right to know who is trying to impact and shape our views on important issues. So moving forward, the simple changes proposed in H. Six eighty six will make sure that future campaigns of a group like BCV Action Fund or Americans for Prosperity are all being held to the same standard of transparency, and Vermonters can have a more complete picture of who is trying to communicate with them throughout the year. I do support the modest amendments to H-six 86 that Ben Ejerli Walsh from VPERG just laid out, just kind of being a little bit more clarity around the types of communication, so adding things like mass mailings, robotic phone calls, paid internet communications, something in that description. So those are all major ways that people are doing lobbying right now. So it's just clear that we want all of that type of activity reported. And then also just adding a little more guidance around what we mean by brief description so that we understand, you can have a sense as a Vermonter what people are trying to communicate about. And Then also just what feels kind of like a cleanup around the definition of lobbying, that that can be communicated in a variety of ways. Happy to certainly, if helpful, offer to work with the Secretary of State's office to make sure that if you all are interested in these amendments, that they can be done in a way that doesn't create any new IT expenses or complications. I think that's feasible. And there was no intention of this bill to prohibit lobbyists for contributing later. So if there is any clarification that needs to happen there, again, similarly happy to work on making sure that that's clear and cleaned up if needed. So just to wrap up, we think this is a meaningful step for transparency. Everyone should have the right to know who's putting out lobbying communications at any time of year. We don't think transparency should end with the legislature adjourns. So thank you so much for taking the time to hear our considerations, and hope to have your support. Happy to take any questions.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, I mean, this reflects a lot commentary, right? Like, I do represent Seville who was working on this, that is the man who's going to speak to this issue once it kind of was identified off session. So I was coming into the year very with a lot of intent to take this up in a serious manner. So I just wanted to say that to you folks clearly. And then I guess it is just sort of this thing we do with bills that are only a page and a half long, then all of a sudden, there's like this like ripple effects and it's kind of sussing out to make sure that the, buzzword of the building for years of intending consequences. Right? So, very mindful of that. I will say that we plan on trying to like suss this out and I do appreciate the other suggestions. So, I'll stop. Any questions from the committee?

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: No. Nope.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Now we nailed the two fifteen desired end time of video recording.

[Lauren Hierl (VNRC)]: Thanks so much.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you. That's a wrap for the week, folks. Good job. We got some one big bill out. We got a couple other things.