With the hoopla over our result-oriented activist Supreme Court’s latest campaign finance ruling, we are finally hearing people take Vermont’s campaign finance problems seriously. At GMD, we’ve been lamenting the fact that Vermont is, apparently, the only state in the union that does NOT have any limits on donations to a candidate by corporations, individuals or political parties.

Entergy could legally contribute $1million dollars, tomorrow, to Brian Dubie or a slate of General Assembly candidates from southern Vermont or any other state candidate for that matter.  Same for Walmart and same for the national political parties.  

We have no entered into another campaign cycle with a no-holds-barred campaign finance environment.  The Supreme Court’s political activism has resulted in renewed visibility of this issue and the time in now to give voters, candidates and the electoral process some much needed certainty going into this year’s primary and general election.

It is still true what we pointed out almost two years ago:

By vetoing the [General Assembly’s campaign finance reforms] Governor Douglas [has] prevented any statutory limit on campaign contributions to gubernatorial (or any) candidates. . .

. . . Prior to 1998, Vermont law mandated “No candidate shall accept contributions totaling more than $1,000 from a single source.” 3 V.S.A. §2805 (pre-1988 language)

In 1997, our General Assembly repealed the $1,000 campaign contribution limit. In its place the legislature adopted a new law mandating a $400 single source contribution limit[, whcih the Supreme Court overruled. . .   So what is the contribution limit to a gubernatorial campaign?  The simple, and legally correct answer, is that there is no limit.

Incredibly, the Attorney General takes the position that the once the General Assembly repealed to prior contribution limits and passed new one, and after the Supreme Court overturned the law as it was currently in effect, a pre-1998 campaign statute “reverted” into place.  

I’ve spoken to many attorneys and many people who received a 70, or higher, in Junior High School Civics class about this.  The universal, and correct, assessment regarding the Attorney General’s view is that it is “creative.”  Legall invalid, but politically “creative.”  The only attorneys who actuall