Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Good afternoon once again. Welcome back to the Senate Committee on Government Operations meeting of Friday, 05/08/2026. And our final item up for consideration is a potential amendment to S two ninety eight, which is the Voting Rights Act, which now, I guess, if we move along too much further, will be the voter protection. This came about, apparently from what I'm led to believe in the late stages of this bill leaving the House Government Operations Committee, and the committee felt they didn't have enough time to vet this properly. So I've asked Tim to come in and give us a little bit of a primer on what this does and how it came about,

[Tim Duffel (Legislative Counsel)]: I guess. So welcome. Thank you very much for having me back, Chair of the Alamo and committee members. For the record, my name is Tim Duffel, I'm the legislative counsel. You have a very brief amendment. And, yes, it's two pages long and just will modify one of the definitions in 17 BSA twenty nine zero one wherein the campaign finance, the religious law here. And, actually, the amendment is drafted because this section's already been amended by the federal government. This kind of replaces the entire section. Although it shows there'll be an amendment to the definition of expenditure, that was already in the bill as it came across in the House. So really, operative language is the second page of the amendment, which would change the definition

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: of political committee or action committee that we call PACs. And if there's a,

[Tim Duffel (Legislative Counsel)]: on paper, a simple change of PAC means any formal or informal committee of one or more individuals or a corporation, etcetera, etcetera, or other entities, not including political parties that accept contributions and or makes any expenditures in The United States, then that or is being changed to an and. Mhmm. The

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: I apologize. Can I just ask? So it's under Rick's name? Is that what the the amendment's under? It's here.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: It's in front of my

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: So I I think that Lynn kindly printed it out for everybody.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yes. Just for clarity this entire time, Lynn has never printed anything out for me because I've asked her not to. You are the only folks receiving the printouts. I'm asking related to the website which section I'm looking at, and I see three potential options. None of them being the amendment you're describing.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: So if I could maybe have that posted.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Oh, he's got an extra copy.

[Tim Duffel (Legislative Counsel)]: So what we have here is, in order to be considered a political action committee or a political committee, two things amendment proposes that two things happen, that see, there's a acceptance of contributions and there have to be expenditures made, And then we qualify that for being within two year general election cycle for the purpose of supporting or opposing one or more candidates, influence an election, or advocating a position on a public question in the election, which includes legislative, legal,

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: leadership, political committees. So

[Tim Duffel (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm just gonna read into the records, something I already shared with the committee, and happy to discuss with that one. So while seemingly simple, the effect of this change is that the entity can either accept or expend large sums without being considered a PAC so long as it does not default.

[Paul Burns (Executive Director, VPIRG)]: Got

[Tim Duffel (Legislative Counsel)]: it. And because it would not be defined as a

[Paul Burns (Executive Director, VPIRG)]: PAC, would not that entity would not have

[Tim Duffel (Legislative Counsel)]: to register or file disclosures in accordance with other campaign finance statutes until it accepts and expanse any binding. So for example, under the proposed language, an entity already having, let's say, a large war chest that only expensed $50,000 but does not accept any contributions, would not have to then register as a PAC, even though the registration threshold for political action committee is $500 of expenditures or accepting contributions. And this is because only political action committees must register, and the entity will not be a political action committee unless it does both. Right. That is it spends funds and accepts funds. Similarly, if we're kind of flip that, an entity seeking to build a board chest for a future election cycle that only accepts, say, $50,000 in contributions, again, does not have to spend any funds, would not have to register even though that threshold for registration is set at $500 or report subsequently because it would not fit the definition of the PAC. PACs have to register and

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Under the amendment? Yes. The way the current We did this a couple

[Tim Duffel (Legislative Counsel)]: years ago. Yes. So now my

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: amendment has to work

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Okay, with great. That's why I thought this was your amendment. No. And I was like, I'm very confused. No. This seems to be the opposite of

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: my I argued really, really hard two or three years ago or whenever we

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: did it to change it from

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: now to war.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yes. So where is the amendment coming from? I guess I confused them.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: It was a request from, I'll just use a generic term, the House Government Operations Committee, and not any one particular person, that we at least consider this. Oh, Because they ran out of time.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yeah. I I guess I would just ask one question then of the counselor. So just to give an example.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: K.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: So if I am a very wealthy individual

[Paul Burns (Executive Director, VPIRG)]: Mhmm.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: And I want to set aside $300,000 this year of my own money to think about a potential campaign in 2026 or 2028 in that in that case. I wouldn't have to say that this year, but I would have to say that in 2028 still.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Spending money.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: When I if I were to use it for that campaign.

[Tim Duffel (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Well, no. Because there's actually a we're only looking at the two year election cycle. So essentially, it kinda resets it for two years.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Oh, so then I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: That's why I wanted it changed to an or. Yeah. That's my And it wouldn't necessarily be my campaign for senate. Would be, say, in this cycle. So I begin today fundraising. I raise $300,000. I don't spend any of it. The campaign cycle resets in 2027, and I decide that I'm gonna spend that $300,000 in opposition to ranked choice voting.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Oh, yes. Mhmm.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I would not have to report either of those things because in the first two year cycle, I simply raised the money, and in the second two year cycle, I simply spent the money Yeah. If we do this other.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yeah. Would say The way

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: we currently have it, I'm gonna report both of those Yeah. That's what I thought.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Okay. Which is

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: what we want. Yes. This is why I argue to change it

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: to your Let's not use the first or the first person plural unless we in other words, some people may not wanna deal with that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: This is an event Oh, they may not. But opposed to me.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Right. You know, but in when we voted that we voted as a committee, that was a committee vote to change it to work.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yes. Mhmm. Yes. This was, like,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: that's that's all I meant.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. Which is, again, why I was a little confused that it came up. Yeah. I I mean, what was requested, we are considering it. Yeah. And Another example would be if I had the wherewithal to do it, I'm not raising any money. I have the money in my account. Yep. That would still not apply because I haven't raised it and then expended it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Okay. That's

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So the way it is now, I would have to repeat.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yes. The

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: way this is worded is those persons would be exempted.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yeah. I would I I guess I would say I really appreciate that there is someone who's concerned about this from that angle, from wanting to have to report less. I can see how you might want to do that, but I do think it opens up a landscape of people being ill informed about what's funding campaigns or items, and I would personally not be in favor of it as we've seen before us. But good to always have the conversation.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah, okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah, as far as I see it, sort of part of why they changed it a few years back was to sort of close the sort of dark, muddy loophole. Yes, yes. Yes.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Is there someone who, is there an individual candidate or campaign that was feeling strapped? Oh, okay.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: That's why I'm confused because I came at such a late point in the session. Did you speak with the chair to understand what I have, and I will again, because we're gonna have to either put the amendment in the bill, which means we've changed it, which means it goes back to the House, and as you well know, it's not a twenty four hour process to go back and forth. They'll have to put it on notice, they'll have to vote absent suspension of rules, which we've always had to do. So it just delays this bill by a few more days to being passed. We may, I say Lee, each of us may have a different feeling about that. We haven't even tried to talk yet about whether this is better resolved in a conference committee or whether we just push this in or not, and then concur with the other changes that the other body made, which includes the charge for the ethics commission to be able to take questions in from candidates, and then indemnifies candidates from not immediately filling out the form. I'm I'm trying to use generic words that aren't politically loaded. I don't I don't get a job. So those are our questions, and I don't know what the answer is. I'm getting a sense from at least three of the members that they don't want to accept this amendment. Right. I think on on my behalf, and I'll let, Morley speak for himself, I will be in favor of it, but I'll certainly yield to the rest of the committee in fairness, and, I can let the house chair know how we feel and then see whether he thinks that we should just go ahead and concur, whether he wants to because I think it's it's an s bill. I think he's gonna be in charge of requesting for a conference committee. Think that was the procedure. So There's a TAR bill.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: There, there are, the other changes that were made are in purview of judiciary, and that was the private right of action was removed from the bill on the House side, and some of the criminal penalties were changed. And I think and I I my sense of the judiciary committee is that there was not as much concern about the change in criminal penalties. There is concern about the private right of action. And I have concerns with that section for tasking the ethics commission to deal with all things the form. I don't I I am reluctantly willing to accept the suspension for one year of the penalties. It seems like there's lots of places. Oh. Right. There's at least two, maybe three outstanding places where

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: The senate is not really in agreement with the house, so maybe it needs to go to conference committee.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: And I did get a note asking today whether we were gonna be able to move this or not. And I said, it's a judiciary, and the person to whom wrote the note to me said, no. It's not. They don't have to say it. No.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: No. Nobody has possession.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I was gonna say it's still

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: on the because you talked to us

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: to agree to agree with the House of Apostle's decision And I think the answer came from Senator Hashim that he was done with it, didn't wanna do anything more. So I don't this has turned into a real, real Wagner type So of

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: there is someone sitting in the room who perhaps could illuminate us on this discussion, given that you are here. Perhaps Paul, did Paul Burns do anything to illuminate the conversation on this particular amendment? I mean, I have to have the chair.

[Paul Burns (Executive Director, VPIRG)]: Chair, for the record, Paul Burns, Executive Director of Beefeird. I wasn't sure what the amendment is when I walked in. Oh, Paul. I heard that there was an amendment of the PAC issue and definition. Having seen that, I am aware that there is a challenge with the language in it, and I could, if you were interested in it, could get others who might speak to their experience or concerns with the language as it stands in

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: the law of the day,

[Paul Burns (Executive Director, VPIRG)]: which even suggests a single individual spending any amount of money becomes a pack, and I'm not sure that that was the intent, but it seems perhaps even more sweeping than, than some would prefer, and I am open to the idea that it may be broader than it's useful as a matter of public policy. There are but it's interesting, you know, we can describe different scenarios, but I do think the current situation, for as us it is, any individual or set of individuals, etcetera, and having the or rather than the and so that a single individual may not be raising money but spending money. You don't want a single, I guess I would argue, wouldn't want a single individual to be classified as a pack in that sense. So that is a kind of consideration that I heard from some. It is not the considered me per opinion right now, but that's kind of shared what I know. That's helpful.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Course, anytime we say, well, let's take it up Tuesday. Again, put the brakes on this bill again for a few more days. I don't know what to do, quite honestly. I really don't.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Well, can I just circle it? So I am open I just wanna make sure I'm parsing out what I like and dislike about the amendment clearly. I am supportive of section k on the first page related to monitoring systems protective detail and cybersecurity related to the candidates. If that's associated with that or that's just pulled over.

[Tim Duffel (Legislative Counsel)]: Pulled over just

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Okay. So that's already a j. That was I've already this is a question. Okay. I'm just rereading it. So really the only thing it it was highlighted would be the end of the second. Yep. That's helpful. I guess I hear what you're saying. But when I read the definition, any formal or informal committee of one or more individuals or a corporation, labor organization, like, if you're an individual, but you're not forming if you're not I guess also I would be concerned about a a well funded individual. Yep. And that's why we that's why we like

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: to have That's why we did that. That's why we did that.

[Paul Burns (Executive Director, VPIRG)]: It's just

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: follows the individual only clinical action. Like, we did this for exact to capture exactly that. Well, Paul, that's a no worries. Thank you,

[Paul Burns (Executive Director, VPIRG)]: mister chair. There's just one other scenario that's worth considering. So I'll just use my own organization as an example. We set up political committees, independent expenditure and coordinating political committees to engage in the political work. But as as the five zero one c four, we may still say you're endorsing a candidate and or any any amount of staff time by the organization spend that could could force her to be a PAG, but we've already created PAGs to do that work. There are, I just think it may go a little, it's challenging in that way, I guess. And I'm happy I I say I didn't walk in prepared to that, but it was just one other scenario that I heard

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: from the other is very different from the individual.

[Paul Burns (Executive Director, VPIRG)]: It is. It's these are two separate

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: And and maybe we should just separate it out into two different things on the other hand. I'd like to know if you raise bunny and you're not you know, if you raise this war chest of money and and you

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: haven't necessarily spent it. Well, especially because of the two year cycle, and that's where it gets into the sort of dark money aspect for me, and we talked about that before. If I have planned out six year campaign against ranked choice voting, and I raise all my money in year one from all kinds of individuals and organizations, but I don't spend any of that money until year four. Nobody has any idea where that money came from. And I don't actually have to report the spending or the fundraising because I didn't do both in the same two year election cycle. Correct. And so that is exactly the this the dark money problem and the well funded individuals who were spending to defeat certain things was exactly why we made this change.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: And this amendment doesn't solve that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: No. No. No. This amendment is trying to undo that change that we made a few years ago.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: This amendment is undoing what we are wanting to do.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: A few years ago, we changed it from and to or to solve that

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: remember. Yep.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And now they're saying go back to and.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. So

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And we litigate this. Is why

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I think there seems to be a lot more discussion that has to be had surrounding this, and you're gonna have to receive a lot more testimony, I think, in order to solve this problem. That's just my opinion. Well, we can pass over it again on Tuesday. But, also, I'd love

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: to just get the chair in again or to whoever to explain why they did this. What was the situation? Yeah. They I would just love

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: to hear the problem they resolved. I just feel like we just recently let it like, we we did take all the testimony. I made the I know you weren't here, but and made the decision to change it from hand to hand.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: And then we got the whole ethics commission, secretaries' needs, issues, and And I saw this Paul Earl and Earl Bob wanted to commend that we wouldn't bring any of that up. Oh, alright. Well, I'm just And I'm the one that brought it up. I'm just because he wanted to commit again and testify. And I said, no. We're gonna stick with just the amendment. And we have an election coming up. So Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I know that. I definitely support the change that eliminates the penalty to candidates. Again, I would love to do so, but it's we cannot figure out where it's fine for That's expecting candidates to do it. But I I don't wanna just pull it out because I think the candidates, like, really find it. We we want that transcript. I don't support the section four piece that passes the annual commission, but now we're going down a But

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: you still have the whole question issues.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I think but I don't think we can deal with it. No. Broader conversation of why I don't support in making the decision in February, which is what the house has done.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. But, again, now we've Yes. We're We've gone. That's okay. No. I was the one that brought it up.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: We could talk about that with Paul next week. I'm happy.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: But I'm I I just I think at this point, like

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Well, I think we are aware of Paul's position. I don't know if there's anything else we can do.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: But I think we're all in agreement about the first piece, which is not penalizing Oh

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: god.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Are we all in agreement about not penalizing candidates if

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: they don't vote for them? Yeah. I think that's only fair.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: That's not fair. And I think three of us are in agreement not to add on some evidence.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Obese it. And I accept that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Obesity. I think the the sort of two outstanding pieces, and I'll connect with Nader because I have a very difficult sense of putting it on a BRA. Okay. Are the PRA and section four. That that section not to be discussed today. Okay. The section thou shalt not be named.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Well, John, thank you for calling.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: That's fabulous.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Wonderful weekend. Okay. So we'll

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: we'll hear from that, hopefully, on Tuesday.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: And I'll have John pass over again Tuesday because we're not ready to Mhmm. Concur or not concur yet or to further propose an amendment. Because if the TRA comes back in, that'll also be a change that goes in there.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Past you. We chatted with Nader about Yeah. Yeah. I've been I have been talking to Nader about it, and that's why I was surprised to hear that he's like, I'm done with it. Because when I talked to him last, he was like, I want that in there.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Okay. So because I would love to have that back. Yes. Me too. And

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: so I would be good. Okay. Is there anything else to come for the committee today? It's not that late. No. We can adjourn without admonition, but yeah. Okay. So Tim, I good weekend. Thank you. I will let you know, or Lynn will, over the weekend. We are gonna take the field trip either Tuesday or Wednesday or Thursday next week. I don't know which day. It's all up to DPS to get back to us. I'm assuming their staffing levels are somewhat smoother. So okay. We will adjourn for the week, and the