I dunno, but the state Senate is managing the trick.

A non-bylined story on the Times Argus website (paywalled), presumably written by Peter Hirschfeld, practically delivers last rites for the campaign finance reform bill that was loudly and unanimously supported by the Democratic, Republican, and Progressive Parties, plus Secretary of State Jim Condos.

The problem is, campaign law is every elected official’s bread and butter, and they are loath to change the rules that got them where they are today. I witnessed the beginning of the bill’s death by a thousand cuts at a recent hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The bill had to pass through Appropriations because it included $100,000 for new IT to manage campaign and election databases.

And the Appropriations Committee basically spent an hour dumping all over the bill. Republicans questioned its basic philosophy — that big money erodes public confidence, and the best available remedy is increased transparency. Many Democrats picked fights with the bill; Dick Sears fretted about possible lawsuits (an issue thoroughly vetted by the Government Operations Committee), and Bobby Starr questioned the need for change because, well, we’ve always done it this way so why shouldn’t we keep doing it this way? Genius.

And nobody wanted to spend any money on the bill, in spite of Condos’ explanation that the existing software is, aside from being hopelessly outdated and inadequate, barely functional at all.

Champions of Democracy, I tell you. During that hour, I did not hear a single expression of concern for the voters. You know, the people who put these mooks in their comfy chairs. The campaign finance reform bill would make it much easier to follow the money in Vermont politics. It would require more frequent filings, to be sure; but electronic filing would make the task a whole lot simpler than it is now.

So I can’t say I was surprised to read the Times Argus account, which spotlighted a return engagement by the Slummin’ Solon, Peter Galbraith, in his role as Derailer of Campaign Finance Reform. His pet peeve is corporate donations; he wants ’em banned entirely.

Which would greatly benefit people like, er, Peter Galbraith, who is independently wealthy and who self-funds his campaigns far beyond the capacity of your typical Senatorial candidate — roughly $50,000 each in 2010 and 2012.

After the jump: the Senate puts the knife in.

As the article recounts:

As the clerk called the roll on Galbraith’s amendment, and “yeses” began to outnumber “nays,” observers in the gallery knew something was amiss. Lawmakers here by and large oppose efforts to prohibit corporate giving to candidates, mainly because it’s a source of funds on which many of them have come to rely.

Sen. Anthony Pollina provided an insightful diagnosis of the vote:

“My gut tells me a majority of the body does not want to prohibit corporate contributions, but they were afraid to go on record as being in support of them,” Pollina said. “So they voted for the amendment with the hope that the whole bill would fail, and they wouldn’t have to comply with that ban.”

And, foreseeing the bill’s defeat, Government Operations Committee Chair Jeannette White basically pulled the bill from the floor.

It’s possible that the bill will make a comeback, but the odds are against passage because Galbraith’s provision is still part of it — and that almost ensures a “No” vote.

Which would make 2013 the second year in a row that Peter Galbraith played a decisive role in killing campaign law reform.

The article ends with this faint glimmer of hope:

Key lawmakers are scrambling now to find a path forward. And Secretary of State Jim Condos said they better figure something out quick. If the state waits until next year to install heightened disclosure requirements, he said, then they may not take effect in time to have any impact on the 2014 election.

At times like these, it’s hard not to see the State Senate as the biggest barrier to progress in Montpelier. I’d just like to thank these self-serving asshats for ignoring the interests of the voters and the expressed wishes of their own parties.

April First may have come and gone, but believe me, we’ve got more than our share of fools.