(Host) The House has voted to sustain Governor Douglas’s veto of a campaign finance reform bill by a one-vote margin.
Backers of the bill said the legislation is needed to keep big money out of Vermont politics, but opponents argued that it gives incumbents an unfair advantage.
VPRs Bob Kinzel reports:
(Symington) "A yes vote is a vote to override the veto, a no vote is a vote to sustain the veto the clerk shall continue to call roll…"
(Kinzel)In order to override the governor’s veto, Democratic leaders had to secure the votes of all 93 members of their caucus, all 6 members of the Progressive caucus and one of the two independent members of the House.
When the final vote was tallied, they had the Progressives and one Independent on their side but their fate was sealed when one Democrat, St. Albans Town Rep. George Allard, voted with the Governor.
Douglas vetoed the bill because it places a cap on the amount of money a state political party can contribute to an individual candidate. There’s a cap of 30 thousand dollars in the governor’s race and there are smaller caps for the other statewide candidates and all legislative candidates.
House Majority leader Carolyn Partridge urged her colleagues to override the veto:
(Partridge)"Madame Speaker the purpose of this bill is to get big money out of Vermont politics. I thank the committee for their hard work in developing legislation, thoughtful legislation that balances the ruling by the Supreme Court with sensible prudent limitations."
(Kinzel) Chester Rep. Kathy Pellet said charges that the bill makes it easier for incumbents to get re-elected aren’t true:
(Pellet)"Madame Speaker I have studied this bill very carefully in 2004 I beat a two term incumbent under the old campaign finance laws which were more restrictive than the new campaign finance reform law that we are voting on today so I would urge the body to override this veto."
(Kinzel) Burlington Rep. Kurt Wright supported the Governor’s veto. He reminded House members that Vermont’s 1997 campaign finance reform law was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court costing the state more than a million dollars in legal fees:
(Wright)"The bill’s promise to take big money out of Vermont’s political process races is an illusion S270 accomplishes little or nothing yet risks another court case which might run into the millions to defend risking Vermont taxpayers money again is not worth the illusion this bill attempts to provide."
(Kinzel) There’s a lot of legal confusion concerning what happens now.Attorney General Bill Sorrell says the law that existed before the passage of the 1997 law takes jurisdiction, but others aren’t so sure and it may take a new court case to resolve this issue.
For VPR News, I’m Bob Kinzel in Montpelier.