Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Good afternoon. Welcome to the Senate Committee on Government Operations Committee meeting of Wednesday, 05/20/2026. We are going to take up H-six 86, an act related to expanding identification of certain lobbying advertisements. Our legal counsel has joined us and you should have on your desks draft 2.1 of the bill. And I'll let Tim walk us through. I think there's only one change in this situation.

[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: For the

[Tim Bethel (Legislative Counsel)]: record, Tim Bethel, legislative council. Thank you for having me today, committee members. So, yes, the one change you will find in this bill is on page four, and this will be in there. Again, we're in section two amending two BSA 26 We have C, identification in and rapport of certain lobbying advertisements. So under subsection B, having been reporting, the committee will remember that we added, proposed to add certain detail and this will be general description of the advertisement advertising campaign. And so all this sub sub sub QP Subdivision 1 requires that there be report whenever there's an advertisement costing one or more, or whenever there's an advertising campaign costing $1,000 and one. Subdivision 2 requires what's to be reported. That's where we have some detail in there. Now, offered up is a Subdivision 3, which will not withstand Division 1, Subdivision 1, that is requiring the report of $20,000 to the expenditures currently. Notwithstanding that subdivision, an advertisement report need not be filed if the lobbyist lobbying in front of a lobbyist employer has already filed the necessary reports and disclosures required under two BSA, effectively an electioneering, or if there's any purple in that diagram I was discussing yesterday, which is a in some way, could be construed as a electioneering communication. The lobbyist lobbying firm, lobbying employer will have to file under campaign finance and disclosure for reasons of the law and then would not necessarily have to, but they could if they want to, file a parallel filing for under the law based laws.

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Think it accomplishes what we asked?

[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yep. I'm perfectly fine with that. I do have another thing.

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: On this one?

[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah. Oh my. Oh, If our intent is to close that gap, I'm surely hoping we're not in this building until July 1, so I wonder if it makes sense more sense for the effective date to be on passage. Only Because right now, when we left Friday, there would be this window until July 1 that

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: would I still

[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: actually-

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I'm open to that. The only disadvantage or concern I might express is someone may already have planned on doing something because this isn't law yet that we're not going to make them run afoul of that.

[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: No. No. They just have to make it court. And if they did it right now, they'd have to make it court.

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. I guess I'm open to that. Any concerns? And it's

[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: not a substantive amendment, and I would be happy with that. Okay. And it's an easy fix for our counselors.

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: It should be. Yeah.

[Tim Bethel (Legislative Counsel)]: We could

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: do that. Would that be 2.3

[Tim Bethel (Legislative Counsel)]: or two? Yeah.

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: 3.1. Well, 3.1. Really that modest points until the next decimal?

[Tim Bethel (Legislative Counsel)]: So the way we do it, and it may vary from

[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Everyone does it differently. Yeah.

[Tim Bethel (Legislative Counsel)]: So the way I was instructed to do it, I'll say it that way, man, is that every time we bring a new version before the committee and make it publicly available, we change the front number above in front of the desk. Oh. So if there's behind the scenes changes between an editor or we're working with a member, it could go up 25123456, but every time we bring it forward to be publicly reviewed, the front number changes over. Interesting.

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Why didn't that always have point zero there?

[Tim Bethel (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know. Oh,

[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: that's a good question.

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Do think that

[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: we've good point. It's been explained to me now three times, and I think each person explained it three different ways.

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah. It's they're all good. So we can vote on this still, pending the three point zero I'm sorry, 3.1 version, which changes the effective date till passage.

[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I would move then that we do that.

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. So this will be an amendment in the House bill, favorable with amendment. Yeah. Six eighty six. 3.1, still using Great. Yay. And you was ready? Yeah. Sounds good. Senator Clarkson?

[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yes.

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Senator Morley, yes. Senator Vyhovsky? Yes. Senator White is absent. Senator Collamore? Yes. Four zero one. I think Senator Vyhovsky is chopping up. You think so, hopefully.

[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Would be better. Nothing would make mine be better. I'll consider it a gift.

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. And there aren't any money issues, so it should come right up on the floor. I mean, unless the calendar gets

[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Which in May?

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: It may. So is there anything else from the committee?

[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yes, there is.

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yes, and I think I know what it is.

[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: We have to be live.

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: No. I will mention just for purposes of the record, 907, maybe you've heard rumblings already, that was our famous reporting bill requirement thing. Sister, sister

[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: That's what they've asked me

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: to come on. Commerce Commerce Committee? Yes. The House Commerce Committee has received a request from the administration because he vetoed the bill.

[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Right. We put it on s seven. They put it on s seven.

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: S seven?

[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: The sister state bill got a put on the bill in commerce, and I believe it's s seven. I don't think that's what he's talking about. Oh, I thought that's- Well, that is what was- Okay.

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: The bill that was passed removed the governor's bill-

[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Oh, okay. That's the

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: system- To do anything. Okay. But Mike, Mark spoke to me today, said, We're sending you back nine zero seven, and we'd like you to just concur because we've made the fix in that bill. Was Back

[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: to my why he said that to you.

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I don't think. Then I apologize. Well, it's because it's in the report. It's in the it is in the bill, actually.

[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Oh. Oh, because it's in the reporting bill?

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: That's what I'm So

[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: since your state was H six seventy four and it was vetoed by the governor But you said S seven. And we put it on, and they had a vehicle in house commerce. So we're using s seven as the vehicle to send it back. That has to come up on nine zero seven once we're done here, so I will report back to the committee when it happens. I

[Tim Bethel (Legislative Counsel)]: think that's what's gonna and I'd I was just gonna say, and Representative Marcotte will be offering an amendment to attach the veto bill, somewhat altered to satisfy the administration, to that of seven.

[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: That's what

[Tim Bethel (Legislative Counsel)]: we're proposing in addition to this committee's

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: not That's right. That's what I thought. They will avoid a veto.

[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: As long as we don't veto the reporting bill.

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: No. We're just gonna end up with the House proposal. Right. All right, so that will be it for the day. We're gonna take another look at the Government Accountability Bill tomorrow, and then we have the ENS Advisory Committee report with Drew Hazeltons on Friday. As we hopefully get near the end, I understand there's been a little bit of movement in the spirit of compromise on the Ed bill, so we'll see what happens tomorrow on that. I guess we are gonna take it up on the floor.

[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Think he misspoke. I asked him afterwards and he said, But that is not what he meant. Oh. I wondered about that. I was really confused too.

[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. So with that in mind, we will adjourn for the day. Hope you're having a good time, Rebecca White, and we will see all of you