SUBJECT: Governor Vetos Two Senate Bills
Montpelier, Vt. -- Governor Jim Douglas this afternoon returned without signature Senate bills S.278 (Campaign Finance) and S.108 (IRV).
The Governor’s veto messages follow.
April 4, 2008
The Honorable David A. Gibson Secretary of the Senate State House 115 State Street, Drawer 33 Montpelier, VT 05633
Dear Mr. Secretary:
Pursuant to Chapter II, Section 11 of the Vermont Constitution, I am returning S. 278, An Act Relating to Financing Campaigns, without my signature because of objections described herein.
I was optimistic that after last year’s veto we could come together to craft meaningful campaign finance legislation that establishes reasonable and responsible limits on contributions to candidates for public office – limits that do not favor incumbents whose advantage over challengers is undeniable. It is with great disappointment that I am unable to support this legislation because it does not address the flaws contained in last year’s bill.
I continue to support campaign finance laws that do not advantage incumbents and that set reasonable contribution limits, establish timely and transparent reporting requirements and reflect Vermont’s values and commitment to free speech. This bill still contains among its flaws a provision that would restrict political party contributions and therefore allow our elections to be controlled by outside special interests. I cannot allow that to happen. After hearing from lawmakers that they wished to have my administration more directly involved during this session, I answered that request. While I have expressed a number of concerns with this legislation, I focused on two of the most problematic provisions. Unfortunately, the area of greatest concern – the limits on party contributions to candidates – was not addressed and remains at the core of my objection to this bill.
The proposed party contribution limits extend unfair political protection to incumbents by establishing an obstacle for challengers. These limits would particularly disadvantage potential candidates of modest means who are unable to fund their own campaigns. Vermonters want and expect real reforms that ensure a truly level playing field for incumbents and challengers alike – a fundamental component of democracy. This bill falls short of meeting that goal. The Honorable David A. Gibson April 4, 2008 Page Two
I had the privilege to serve as Secretary of State – Vermont’s top election official – for 12 years and understand well the impacts of our election laws. While this bill does not directly affect me as a candidate for Governor, it would have unfair consequences for other candidates, especially those for the Legislature. Because of my continued commitment to protecting our election process, I cannot support this bill. I am proud that Vermonters run clean, honest and transparent elections. This bill would undermine that tradition by limiting party involvement and encouraging the swift proliferation of special interest political action committees (PACs). PACs, by design, represent special interests. Political parties, however, are the very framework around which individuals of similar political beliefs can work together toward a common goal, a common good. Unfortunately, this bill favors the special interest over the common good. It has the regrettable distinction of being influenced by special interest groups with their own self-interest and not the public’s interest in mind.
One of the bill’s findings states that “in Vermont, campaign expenditures by persons who are not candidates have been increasing and public confidence is eroded when unidentified expenditures are made, particularly during the final days of a campaign.” The proposed limits on the activity of parties would not lessen the amount of money spent in a particular race. Instead it would create a vacuum that candidates themselves would be unable to fill. The result would be the empowerment of special interest groups who are poised to fill this void. Their independent actions, fundraising and expenditures without the input, and worse, without the approval of the candidate, are unlimited. This provision would ensure that these well financed, often out-of-state, organizations to run more attack ads and make more independent expenditures than ever before.
An election system once predominantly financed and organized by Vermonters would be influenced more significantly by special interest PACs. No candidate should be at the mercy of these groups. I do not believe that the voice of a candidate should be drowned out by the noise of special interests.
While I make no determination as to the constitutionality of S. 278, like the law rejected as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, we can expect that it would be challenged. In fact, the winning attorney in Randall v. Sorrell has testified that this bill contains provisions that – in his legal opinion – are most certainly unconstitutional and would result in a challenge. The previous lawsuit took ten years to resolve in court and cost taxpayers nearly $1.5 million in fees to the prevailing attorneys alone. It is only prudent that as we face challenging economic times we not ignore the possible fiscal impacts of legislation we consider. The Honorable David A. Gibson April 4, 2008 Page Three
I do not believe this is the direction Vermonters want to move in or what anyone except the special interests themselves would consider reform. I again extend to the Legislature my commitment to establish campaign finance standards that are fair and enhance transparency.
Sincerely,
James H. Douglas Governor
JHD/dc
April 4, 2008
The Honorable David A. Gibson Secretary of the Senate State House 115 State St., Drawer 33 Montpelier, VT 05633
Dear Mr. Secretary:
Pursuant to Chapter II, Section 11 of the Vermont Constitution, I am returning S. 108, An Act Relating to the Election of U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator by the Instant Runoff Voting Method, without my signature because of objections described herein. There are serious flaws with this proposal to alter Vermont’s system of elections. This system has served the people of Vermont well for more than 200 years and is one I had the privilege of administering for a dozen years as Secretary of State. This bill circumvents the fundamental democratic principle of one person, one vote. That is entirely unacceptable. The authors of our Constitution applied this standard – compelling each voter to choose the candidate for each office that she or he deems most qualified – to ensure that elections are in fact a clear choice.
The Attorney General’s office has confirmed in a formal, written opinion that attempts to amend the law in order to apply the so called Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) process to races for Governor, Lieutenant Governor and Treasurer would, in fact, be unconstitutional. While S. 108 would apply to the election of our U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator, this does not render the attempt to legislatively impose IRV democratically sound.
Our state Constitution provides a clear and effective mechanism for changes to its provisions. Voter approval, through the process set forth in our Constitution for its amendment, necessitates a statewide ballot that includes the voices of all Vermonters. If the Legislature proposes to fundamentally alter our election process, this is the procedure Vermont should follow. The Honorable David A. Gibson April 4, 2008 Page Two
Moreover, voters should not be asked to cast their ballots based on a wide range of hypothetical, theoretical or imaginary outcomes. Elections have always been, and ought to remain, contests among individual candidates and their ideas. Voters have always, and should continue to, cast their constitutionally protected vote for the individual for each office they believe would best serve Vermont. In addition, the process offered by this bill cannot result in a candidate being the top choice of a majority of voters. It is mathematically impossible for the candidate chosen by the IRV process to receive a majority of first votes cast. In other words, use of an IRV system requires a significant number of second and third choices – not the voter’s real choice – to be counted. It is therefore not valid to conclude, as the advocates and special interests do, that the winner of an IRV election would receive a majority of the vote. Finally, this system would undoubtedly lead to backroom deal making between candidates who urge supporters to vote for or against a second choice candidate if no one receives a majority. This would erode public confidence in the process. This proposal would cause a deterioration of our time tested, democratic and egalitarian electoral process. The current system has served the people of Vermont well for more than 200 years. There is no basis to make the democratically unsound change this bill proposes.
Sincerely,
James H. Douglas Governor
JHD/jg