 I like the theory of it. I'm just, I'm clear about how to be as clean about it as we'd like to be. I like the idea of limiting how many packs I can create. And I, and it doesn't bother me that that would limit franchises or subsidiaries. I mean Anthony, what are you, I mean this is your baby, what are you thinking? The less the merrier, as far as I'm concerned. Yeah, I mean that's generally what I would say. Just this question of like when you're talking about subsidiaries, I didn't think of them as these regional groups. I'm not so sure about limiting them. Maybe I don't feel that strongly, that's why I'm not being clear about it. Will, do we have any, or fall or down, or anybody, do we have any examples of corporations that are on our radar screens? An example of the misuse of this? Or an example of a corporation creating more than one pack, you know, or a group. I mean do we have examples of anything that's been sort of stuck out or egregious or has risen to the top? Under our Vermont system and the Vermont registrations, it's pretty rare that a single entity registered more than one pack. Rare but not impossible. I can't think of an example off the top of my head that gives you an indication of power. I'm searching through the registrants from the 2018 cycle right now that you can search on our website and I'm not finding any. But of course there is no particular incentive to do that now because there isn't a restriction on corporate giving in the way that would be in place under this law. So it's not surprising that you wouldn't find that now. There are examples of where individuals have been giving through a number of different corporate entities. Your former colleague Senator Galbraith used to speak a lot about the idea that people could create an innumerable number of LLCs and so forth. And I don't know how many examples of that. Certainly there are examples that one could find where people have given or kind of related corporations have all given to a certain candidate. But it costs money to set up LLCs. I mean it's not an insubstantial thing to create LLCs. To do an LLC? No. Are you kidding? It's effort. It's time. And it's some money. Right? But not much. My husband set up his LLP for $20 registration fee at the Secretary of State's office. That's what it cost him. So I was just mentioning that as a point of fact, excuse me Senator, related to the language you guys are looking at right now. I always come to you with the perspective of can I answer questions about it from the people who have regulated by it? I don't have an issue with that particular list of kinds of subsidiaries that's in there. And my answer to anybody asserting that they weren't one of those would be that it's up to them to make that argument when somebody challenges them on that basis. I think most of them will look at that list and acknowledge that they are one of those things before it will be clear that they aren't. And I think Paul's point is a good one, which is this will, our limitation in other areas, it's like the balloon. It will make this more possibly more relevant because when you're limited in one capacity, you often try and find ways that you aren't limited, obviously. This would then help keep that a little more consistent without allowing it to pop up in greater numbers elsewhere. So I have enough issues with this section. I don't have any issues with the other two. I have enough issues with this that what I would say is what my feeling is if the corporation or the public interest group or the labor organization has to have their name in the PAC, when this takes effect and we see that BPERB has now set up 23 PACs or that ExxonMobil has set up 23 PACs, we can revisit it. Good point. You can always do that. I just have enough concerns about it right now that I would not feel comfortable defending this. Anthony, what do you think? I think I would like that. You what? I think I would like what you just said. Me too. Me too. So we should be able to get a clean copy of the original with your first amendment there about the name. Yes, yes. Hello, Mr. Protan. Can I chat with you for a moment? The primer just right here. What do you mean? That means in private. So can I just one second first? I believe we are dealing with this until three o'clock. Is it possible to have a clean copy and we can vote on it? Before three? Yes, we'll get him. What do you prefer in the strike off format? Whichever is easier. We've heard that in some instances because of workload that it's easier to do an amendment, but whatever is easier for you. Okay. I prefer strike off but on this one I don't care. Okay. All right. Just two seconds. Yes. So we'll take a break right now for 15 minutes. Okay. Language and even though we can be proud that the mom was one of the first to set limits on indenture servitude and to prohibit slavery, still I think for some people, I can't necessarily personally relate because I'm a person of color. I don't have ancestors who had to deal with any of this, but I think for some people it really, it triggers very difficult ideas and I just really think we need to be as plain and straightforward as possible. Yes. So my committee knows that if I was able to do this just on my own, which I'm not, probably a good thing, we'd end it with just after therefore slavery in any form is prohibited because I think the objective of this, and I think it dovetails to what your objective is, our objective is to clarify for the public and people were even though Peter Chavez helped illuminate the misconception that people I think were under and the language is misconstrued and I think our objective in changing this amendment is to clarify for the general population and I think that clarifies it. I'd like in my view, less is more, but we have discussed this at great length and there are other concerns about legally what you're beholden to do or not beholden to do for jury duty or for debts or for mortgages or for whatever else you're required to pay or covered in other statutes. So if we're going to do a nod to current understanding, we can also embrace the fact that most of what is covered elsewhere is covered in current under our statutes in other areas. So I think less is more, but that's what we've been back and forth between because that's what VLCT asked for is also the ending after prohibition. Yes. I actually support this language and I support it because I think that it is really important to acknowledge that when the founders did this, they were saying no person born in this country or brought from any place else ought to be beholden except by their own consent to be a servant and they said slave or apprentice. Now we removed slave because I think that that little trio made it very complicated there because you really can't consent to be a slave but you can consent to be a servant or an apprentice. People do it all the time. Which could be pirates. You can consent to being a servant or an apprentice. Primarily that's the way you get to be a servant or an apprentice is by your consent. And I do like the or bond by law for the payment of debts damages. I mean that it seems to me that there is some historic value there and people are bound by law for payment of debts damages fine. We have people in jail right now who are serving out sentences for some of these things. So I do like this language. We're a committee of five and we'll make that decision. Some of us felt that we really didn't even need to do anything because slavery is already prohibited under the 13th amendment and what we learned which is really hard to tell people is that by putting that age in there and it used to be the age of 18 for women and 21 for men and then by putting that in there it wasn't referring necessarily to slavery but was referring to indentured servitude and in most states 30 was the age and so we were being really progressive here in saying you're free at 18 or you're free at 21 instead of waiting till 30. But that's hard to explain to people. We had a debate about whether we should even do anything and just leave it the way it was because historically we were the first state to prohibit slavery and if we just have that first part it's just using exactly what was in the Pennsylvania Constitution. It isn't unique to Vermont at all. It's just taken directly from the Pennsylvania Constitution and then we added the part about slavery. Brian, do you want to? Yeah, I think as Chair mentioned if you take the three people who have so far spoken you'll find three views on this. Mine is in concert with Senator McCormick tonight. I was swayed very much by his argument that we just leave things alone. As I think as he put it it does provide a useful and instructive learning opportunity for people to look at, measure progress against the way things are today and constantly have that as a frame of reference. So we, Allison is kind of on one side and Senator Wright is in the middle and I'm on the other side. I would say I think two things. We're trying to find a balance between being clear but not necessarily eliminating all the words of the people who wrote the Constitution because there's some historical significance of things that they said, some of which was not good obviously I'm not denying that. But I think the main idea behind this effort is to make it clear that slavery is prohibited and has been prohibited in Vermont. And the purpose that says the proposal would amend the Constitution to clarify that slavery in any form is prohibited. And you go down to line 12 and it says all persons born free of their natural rights slavery prohibited. So it says it twice and I'm in line 16 it says therefore slavery in any form is prohibited. So I understand where you're coming from Senator Ingram. And I'm willing, I'm not thinking it through I'm just saying that when I look at it it seems pretty clear to me that it's prohibiting slavery because it says it in very definitive terms three times within seven lines. So I'm not close to what you're saying but I'm just putting up another one of you. Yeah, I appreciate that. But I think that there are some things that we can teach in our history classes and I've put in our history books and other things that I mean the Constitution is not meant to necessarily teach people history it's meant to be the expression of our current values and thoughts and the way we look at it at the law. And that's, you know, I think that people are kind of interpreting this as it's a living document and so it's appropriate to make those changes and to teach the history separately in history class and in our history books. I agree with that. I also agree that saying it in this manner does make it clear and does reflect our current values because it does say that you can't be beholden unless by your own consent. That makes it very clear that that is our current value in my mind and I'm not going to, we're not going to discuss this anymore not because we're going to move into the next thing but so we could, the Constitution is a framework of our values and what we believe. How we actually operate and what we actually do is not always consistent with the framework and what we believe so we know that we weren't being consistent. Just one quick final thing we're allowed to do. So an interesting thing that I learned as we've been working through this process is that Article 36 in the Constitution under Articles of Amendment dated 1913 addressed the judges to the Supreme Court to revise the Constitution to bring it up to date so that it expressed its current beliefs and as opposed to how we handle the U.S. Constitution we leave it alone and then we keep adding amendments so you can see the earlier version three-fifths of a person friends and a new rating and then you see the 13th amendment come along later. So I'm a little torn and your pardon me to say well if we stuck with the process laid out in 1913 we would say contemporize it and that would include illuminating that section and we've been headed and on the other hand you can say if it has value and so I would say we're part of the wrestling matches to say do we keep historical references in there as for some people as a point of pride in the first state to have had a that's when you complete the prohibition or problematically expressed prohibition obviously I'm torn between the two camps Well I'm going to have a chair I'm going to take my prerogative and have the last word on this and then we're going to move and I would say that it is a living document and it should reflect our current values and this language does reflect our current values because it says no one born in this country or brought from overseas ought to be beholden by law to serve any person as a servant or a friend I don't think that any of us would argue that that's a value that we have nor or bound by law unless bound by the person's own consent or bound by law to the payment of death's damages fines costs and the like I don't know that anybody would or I certainly don't say that that isn't the value of ours to me it does reflect our current values it doesn't always reflect our current practices but it does reflect our current values in my mind so as the chair's prerogative thank you thank you thanks a lot thank you asking people to testify then on Thursday that would be okay and get in touch with K.O. yeah and if they have just because we only have a certain amount of time if they have different perspectives or different points of view and I will again say that it's not a popularity contest so if 20 people come in and say the same thing the same thing that's because we have and I do feel a little bit that we've had this on the agenda for a long time and nobody has asked to come in to testify so I'm a little concerned now that people are upset that we're going too fast now so I'm going to tell you it wasn't on people's very much but I understand thank you yes thank you very much thanks a lot see you later thanks dad alright so committee we're going to go to S-47 as you could tell what bill we're dealing with by looking at this in the wrong so I think that when we did S-47 we had two three decisions to make am I right here we have three decisions to make do we like the language that's there now do we want to address putting the name requiring whoever sets up a pack to have their name in the pack and what would that mean and do we want to limit the number of packs any corporation well anybody would have to be anybody the number of packs anybody I would think could form a corporation, a union, a labor union that's so those are am I do I remember writer those are three those are the three that are left okay so let's take the first one first did we is Ellen are coming do we I don't know anyway do we have are there issues with the the first one about the definition of the the purse the individual we don't know the short term yeah these are are we still on the the only ground I have is 1.1 so that's that's the answer memo of yesterday yeah overview of potential SGO right to S41 right but first what I want to do is this is is the underlying question was do you have that in here Betsy do you want to join us sure would you like me to post these documents or would you like to go through them first I can post them okay once this drafts that is right that's okay right yeah and then Betsy Ann did a memo twice yesterday and we're looking at I guess section 1A which adds to the fact that we're missing okay Betsy do you want to yeah put her at your Betsy Ann Rask with a slate of counsel pursuant to your request I drafted draft amendment 1.1 it's labeled with yesterday's date with the noon time stamp Madam Chair as you already described what this amendment overall would do would first acknowledge that PACs that don't reach current laws $1,000 spending or contribution threshold can form a PAC before they reach that threshold our current law just says once you reach $1,000 of spending and contributions that you are PAC so the first part of this amendment is just saying and you can also register as a PAC prior reaching that threshold so for example if S-47 were enacted and a corporation wanted to make a $500 contribution to a candidate this bill would prohibit the corporation doing so directly it would need to establish a PAC to do so so the language on the first page allows entities to form PACs before they reach the $1,000 threshold okay okay we'll go through the law first okay on page 2 what's happening is the idea that you had discussed the other day that a PAC would need to include in its name and state in its PAC registration form of the Secretary of State's office the full name of its connected organization which is a defined term in this amendment or any commonly known abbreviation by which it's known so for example if corporation XYZ wanted to start a PAC it would have to include the name corporation XYZ in the PAC name I included in your overview that this is similar to what's required under federal law and everybody has federal law sites where currently a PAC under federal law PAC registration name has to include the name of its connected organization and that would go for anything not just the corporation but anybody who wants to form a PAC if the trade association or a union or the Methodist Church yes the Secretary of State's office did point out to me that maybe you would want to add here if applicable in case there's not a connected organization that is establishing a PAC so that's one potential amendment that I have here and we can come back to that issue for example it's a group of neighbors that want to start a PAC another thing that was happening is on your last page on page 4 which is a small sentence page 4, lines 3 and 4 but it would prohibit a connected organization from registering for the one PAC that makes contributions so that inclusion of the phrase that makes contributions as noted in your overview on page 4 lines 3 and 4 there are lines 59, 61, 60 the line numbers just keep on going ours say 61 and 69 it's exciting it's put us on our toes it means we're all away it's on 68 and 69 hard on me, thank you I guess it's because I've send it not as a PDF and as a word doc so there must be some weird format are you a number of any hoops it doesn't make any difference we're on line 68 and 69 thank you Madam Chair, sorry about that the language is a connected organization registering more than one political committee that makes contributions that phrase as I noted in the overview that makes contributions is designed to help avoid any unconstitutional speech implications so it doesn't apply to IE only PAC super PACs which don't make contributions I noted that provision on page 2 of your overview is similar to what happens in Connecticut's law which prohibits business entities from establishing more than one PAC and it's also similar to what happens in federal law because federal law says if you're a subsidiary of a connected organization all of the connected organizations subsidiaries, divisions, parents etc all of their contributions are affiliated and relate back to that one connected organization so in a way it has somewhat of a similar effect that there's limits on contributions from that one connected organization because all the contributions relate back to that one connected organization and therefore relate to that overall contribution limit that's a PAC committee. So if you had Exxon Corporation Exxon Corporation but then you had 70 17 dealer Exxon dealers in Vermont the whole shebang could only have one PAC is that what this is saying? This language in your amendment is saying that yes as it's defining a connected organization because connected organization down below that prohibition includes any organizational parents, subsidiary, branch division department or local unit thereof I base it on the federal law how the federal law is administered to practice I'm not 100% certain but it's based on the same concept that it all relates back to the parent organization So if you had the Vermont NEA they formed a PAC you couldn't have the Wyndham County Chapter form a PAC Yes, that's how I would read that They couldn't definitely should hear from the Indian Secretary of State's office on how they read that to make sure it's clear for how they need to administer and execute the law The last part of the amendment subdivision 2 it says it's meant to clarify the members of the connected organization etc that seems to say that if the chemical producers of America which includes Monsanto has a PAC it doesn't stop Monsanto from having its own PAC That subdivision so if that that subdivision 2 at the end is relating to membership organizations like trade associations where different businesses are for example membership of the Realtors Association has a PAC when it stopped Polina Realty from having a PAC No, it wouldn't stop it Why? Because it's a trade organization Okay, okay So separate entities So if a person Bray construction and Bray plumbing owned by the same person could either or both of those businesses form a PAC Those sound like two different businesses to me Well, they would be registered separately I would assume I'm just thinking of what we want to capture and what we don't Right Are we talking about it now or are we going to I don't know Yeah, what I want to do is make sure that we get through so that we understand what's in here before we start debating But I don't see in your draft the original Oh, this would just add on to it Okay I was saying, what has she done She just rolled up Okay, so our three decisions then we'll hear some testimony on this are Number one a person Betsy's person here individual The number if they can do more than one and whether their name should be in those are three decision points Right? Okay So Do do we have any more questions for Betsy Okay Just explanations No, I just have information about the Connecticut that did this You mean you have information or you want information I'm just curious if we So the objective I think of doing all this is to try and get the conception the the perception, thank you that's really misconception thinking all these bills we're dealing with in this building the perception of influence we're trying to get at eradicating or getting producing the impact of influence through corporate giving on an individual candidate or an organization and I guess my question is in the places that have done it like Connecticut they've done one of these do we see less money being spent do we see less influence being trying to be exerted I mean what are the results that we've seen so far of corporate of bills that have been designed to limit corporate influence I don't have any information I think you have to take testimony from other places that have these prohibitions I don't know for sure I don't have that subjective knowledge Because it I just wish I and I'd love to be effective and maybe somebody has information about Connecticut choice that anybody does and I don't think it's about limiting the amount of money because we can't do that it's about influence that's not about limiting the amount of money they didn't say that okay any questions for Matty about the okay so who wants who wants to testify who wants to come up the same Dan, Paul Josh Josh yeah okay I'm I'm asking Dan and Paul first thank you for the record my name is Paul Verves I'm the executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group or BPRT we have earlier expressed support for this underlying legislation so appreciate the committee's interest in it and your investigation into some of these proposed amendments as well I would say for the record that in the last biennium we asked sent an email out to our members and asked if they were interested in this issue of banning corporate contributions to candidates and we would be happy to submit electronically for the record the names of more than 700 Romaners who took the opportunity to respond in a positive way to that to sign on to a petition saying that they supported I believe the bill was S120 last biennium and as you know that bill was essentially the same as the bill that you were initially taking up this year and the petition itself was pretty general it was just about the question of whether you supported the idea of prohibiting corporations from giving money in the same way that you know human beings can give money to candidates so that is a demonstration of public interest and public support I think for this idea that you have before you as I said I'd be happy to submit that electronically for the record as it relates to the proposed amendments that at CEM was was walking through we have also testified in the past in favor of the idea of limiting the number of political committees that an entity could create so that you're not so that you're trying to address the potential for a corporation or another entity to circumvent the restrictions that you're otherwise trying to put in place here so if a single corporation for instance could create ten different political committees that is an invitation it seems to us to work around the other restrictions that you're putting in place as a matter of public policy so we think it makes sense as long as you have the legal ability to do so and it seems that because others have already taken this action that that path is open to you we similarly think that it makes sense to require the name of whatever the term of art was that's ENU's but the affiliated entity should be part of the PAC as well and that's just a matter of transparency so that people have some better idea about who is funding that political action committee I can't imagine much of an argument against that so you know we think that that makes sense I should add that your counterparts in the house were considering some of those issues when the bill arrived over to them in the last legislative biennium and so I think that that would help to address some of the concerns that were being raised in the house government operations committee so we would be supportive of that Senator Clark to your question I don't come here today with information about how in the future you know whether there has been any identifiable reduction in influence or certainly any reduction in dollars spent overall by affected entities be they corporations or otherwise but we do know again that simply by doing this you're at least closing off one possibility for entities to again circumvent the restrictions that you're otherwise have an existing law or that you would put into law through this proposal so that is to say a single individual who may control multiple corporations couldn't give them as an individual and then as a corporation or as multiple corporations maxing out multiple times and so that that just is the case now in Connecticut at least that you don't that you have closed the door to that type of circumvention I guess you could say of the campaign finance laws so it's not perfect in that it doesn't address every aspect of undue influence in our elections we you but we all as a public policy matter are limited in some ways by what the Supreme Court has said and so we try to do what we can I think to limit undue influence in the ways that are available to us and certainly this seems like a sensible one that 22 states and the federal government have been doing for over a century for the most part and we think it does make sense with the proposed amendments that you're considering now thank you for the opportunity do you want to guess if I also are getting to say what you want to say what would it be do I do I do I will gosh I think he actually said it everything I would have said as well so can we make decisions let's take the first one first the original underlying bill the not prohibiting corporations but identifying that only an individual or a political party or a PAC can donate to a candidate or a political party it doesn't prohibit corporations and it does but backwards it doesn't because it was so hard to define corporations so this does it in that way process question yes did you want to address the amendments first and then the underlying bill or do you want to know I want to there are three issues okay the first what I'd like to do is take them off okay and I I don't care which direction we do it but the the one issue is the way we defined that only individuals in the original bill that we define the way we define the second issue is do we limit the number do we require a name associated with the PAC the name of the organization and the third issue is do we limit the number those are I think are the three decisions that we have to make and I just thought that since we had the most conversation about the underlying one that we might be able to make a decision on that first so the original okay one, two, four of the original bills introduced I have to admit I'm a little confused of this first one I'm beginning to the second two let me be the best clear let me explain then the original bill said that only an individual a political party or a PAC could contribute directly to a candidate or a political party that's the underlying that was what we had and that's what we're voting on now so in essence prohibits corporations labor unions trade associations LLC well they're corporations every type of corporation any labor union any trade association any church any nonprofit if they're not already prohibited it this is what we passed last year right I'm just trying to reconcile definitions I'm just trying to figure out are we working from the bill is introduced okay section one is totally different no I'm sorry take the original bill okay take the original bill yes that is what we're dealing with right now that is where the underlying language is about the definition of individuals and corporations it is not in the draft amendment that Betsy gave us because it's in the underlying language so that's fine so those are three issues and the first issue that I've asked us to address is this issue of defining that only individuals PACs and political parties can contribute to political parties or candidates directly that's what the original bill did okay Anthony has made a motion can we just have a show of hands on that in favor of that so we've done that one now the second issue is the name do we want to suggest that or do we want to suggest we suggest by this law actually we did there was a bill at one point that suggested that people do some oh I know it was tags for lobbyists so do we want to require a name associated the name of the underlying entity that is forming the PAC do we want to require that they have their name associated with the PAC and I don't know if this means they have to have it in all of their publications or if they just have to have it registered with the secretary of state or embedded in the name itself I thought well I mean they could have verandas for happy families which could be a PAC of VEPER or it could be a PAC of Vermont Yankee so you say Vermont Yankee verandas for happy families but in so that's the way it's registered with the secretary of state would it be required in all of their all their publications and everything Betsy yes it would be required the PAC name itself would be required to include the name of its connected organization or its abbreviation or acronym and for example this would if such a PAC issued an electioneering communication because you have to have that identification information in their electioneering communications the paid for by so if it was Properation Expoisee's PAC it would say paid for by Properation Expoisee PAC for happy families or they want to name themselves I would move that we accept that amendment I just have a question you also have to include the name of anybody like the treasurer the CEO the president this amendment would not change that whatever the current law is for example I think there are some some special identification requirements yes for example in 17 BSA 2973 if it's an electioneering communication on radio TV or internet it's not an individual the audio statement has to include the name of the title of the treasurer in the case of the PAC but this amendment would not change those PACs and when you register your PAC you have to say who your treasurer is would you ever list everybody that's in it no but you do have to list when people donate to the PAC but you don't yeah so this would what I like about this is instead of having to research who the campaign for happy families is you know up front who is sponsoring the campaign on happy families so I like this change and I would move that we accept it sorry sorry did I say that I'm sorry I realize I said that I didn't want to testify I don't say that I might want to weigh in on the possible it has been a rough morning sorry no well setting director of elections for the record Betsy Ann mentioned it before that my suggestion is just to add if applicable when it's a group of people individuals it's pretty rare that we see those PACs but just to allow for it it's hard to put the neighborhood of Elm Street PAC for not cutting down trees I was just looking at it it's an entity that's formed the PAC it's a bunch of people to that point I think if you didn't do anything if you left it alone as Betsy has drafted it now I would read it as requiring you list the names of those people it's just a random group of people let's say those of us in this room decided to start a PAC wouldn't we not identify ourselves at all in the name of the PAC because we're just random? yes that's what I'm suggesting I was going to say I was going to say we haven't we've been in the senate I'm not saying that's bad I just want to be clear I think you're right I don't know how you would if it's a group of people PAC is a group of people that get together yeah so like the Realtors PAC is is separate from the Realtor Association so do they have to because it's people donate specifically to that PAC $25 or less do they have to say the Vermont Realtor Association PAC even though it's made up the PAC itself is made up of individuals who donate to that PAC it isn't it would be in my mind now as we are talking about it would be the Vermont Realtor Association's campaign for clean water but it is individuals that are doing it how is that different than the individuals but they're not individuals they come together as a group the individuals donate to that PAC the corporation the Realtor Association does not donate to the PAC the individuals do oh I see what you mean on the other hand it is the group as a group that is sponsoring that PAC that's called campaign for clean water but it may not be all the Realtors that belong to the Realtor Association it may be 32 of them as opposed to a membership of 75 yeah but they breathe as a group to do it who are these people writing their check to $25 check to the PAC and the PAC has a name the PAC is so my question is if you have okay go ahead I hope we're not overcomplicating it I know the organization of the connected organization doesn't relate to who makes contributions to the PAC it relates to it's defined as all the group of entities that are currently considered PACs two or more individuals corporation, labor organization, etc that directly or indirectly establishes and ministers for financially supports the political committee will support because they're further defined as not contributions to it but payment of establishment administration and solicitation costs so the underlying administrative costs so in your example it would be the Realtors Association that's set up the PAC ministers the PAC regardless of who contributes to it the very limited circumstance I'm talking about is when it's two or more people in you that set up a PAC and then I don't know what you would call there is no connected organization that you could name and that's why I was saying I guess if you left it as it is my advice to those groups would be the name of your connected organization is your names sending in white go for it again so if we wanted to form Vermonters for Happy Families we would just call it Vermonters for Happy Families you would be the treasure and I donate to it so I'm on the list of donies and you are of donors and anyone else we can convince that we wouldn't call it that we would call it the PAC for Happy Families in those circumstances you would use the individual but what if it's 32 individuals and you don't have a group name well they do their group name is the neighborhood to say Elm Street they're not attached to anything they're just they want to save the trees on their street or they want to why aren't they just a non-profit why are they a PAC because they're not a non-profit they just want to support candidates they're a political action committee so somebody help us out here because I'm getting myself all the time I think the wills correctly probably Betsy wanted to say the same thing but even if it's an informal committee of you and I if you follow that sentence down if we establish a minister or financially support a political committee that's where it captures being a PAC if you're not already supporting a political committee then it would fall under the if applicable part of this I think Betsy I think if you two were already holding yourself down it's over the good government group you might include that in this name but I think the director of elections was saying to avoid these issues where it's just a couple of individuals getting together they want to form a PAC you would just say a political committee's name shall include the name of its connected organization if applicable just in case you're one of those I think the director described it as the unusual situation where a couple of real individuals are getting together and say let's form a PAC because we want to support these types of candidates so if you put the if applicable in there when the people on Elm Street decide to save the Elm trees they're not connected to a connected organization so that's not applicable then great okay let's say registered a non-profit and then set up a PAC using that non-profit's money they set up the PAC by meeting at the kitchen table right I think that makes sense thank you I certainly got myself in a knock on that one all your logic thank you okay so do we agree that the name of the connected organization should be part of the name of the PAC yes we've made a motion and it's been seconded okay so all in favor of that okay so now we move on to the third one which is well I don't think we have to make any decision on page one on that clarification that allows PACs to organize themselves before the thousand dollars just to make it clear I don't think it was allowed before but this just makes it clear okay so on to page four and this is probably four of one point one or page this is very good this would require them to only set up one I mean it would prohibit them from setting up more than one I like that idea I would support that I need some clarification I'm mostly I don't feel something nagging at the back of my brain that says I have a question I'm not even sure what it is well let me try my question and see if it helps you I am um Cumberland Farms oh no I take one that's owned by somebody in Vermont I'm Kota and Kota we have a company down there a home fuel distributor home eating fuel they have their corporate headquarters and then they have places that they owned some gas stations and some gas stations are those gas stations a part of Kota and Kota so they couldn't make their own that isn't a very good example but the question of subsidiaries is that what you're trying to get at not even, yeah not subsidiaries, what is it that you own in McDonnell? franchises, thank you subsidiaries or franchises is that what you're trying to get at? well that would be one but another one I'm thinking isn't even as as a so you have arched diocese of Vermont is that what the and then you have Catholic churches underneath that I believe but they're not incorporated separately I don't believe aren't you all part of I'm not a Catholic either I'm making this up but what would that mean I guess that the St. Michael's in Brattleboro wanted to form a little pack because they had a particular issue in Brattleboro area they could not do it if the arched dioceses had formed a pack am I right about that here? I think so what do you that's it I think it's the gray area what's considered a subsidiary subsidiary and franchises are a good challenge for this so I base this on federal law which I provide a link to there on your page 2 of your overview talks about groups being affiliated including subsidiaries collaboration so it does include subsidiaries but I think that line which is raising these questions is that should they be considered a separate entity they could very well have very different reasons for wanting to influence an election than their parent if the federal guidelines to this are as complicated as the federal guidelines on banning corporate contributions I don't think there's any way we can make this clear I'm not sure I support this section because I don't think we in my mind it's not clear enough and I'm not sure I don't know a corporation can give to more than one pack so you could have corporation X forms a pack and Y forms a pack and A they all deal in the same business whatever it is and they can all give to each other's packs we can't stop that so no we can't you can't okay we can't because we can't say where where people can give their money except we can say that they can't give it directly they can give to any pack they want we can't tell them they can't so I don't know that this if you want to one potential solution is to get rid of that language saying that a connected organization includes any organizational parents subsidiary branch division department or local unit then what would it do it would just go back to the original and that started a pack that would say they can't those same people could not form another one oh the parent organization but why wouldn't you just say then oh I see corporation, labor organization, public interest group or other entity that directly established so you couldn't the NEA couldn't have two packs one for promoting good classroom behavior and one for they were in a support candidate who promoted good classroom behavior and one that supported lowering property taxes the question is whether they could have the NEA could have a pack then the Wyndham County NEA could have a pack but if we take out subsidiary here then they could subsidiary branch division department or local unit thereof that's just suggesting we take that out which would eliminate that issue but could they so they couldn't have they couldn't have more than one pack the NEA itself for modern NEA but if we take that language out then the Wyndham County one could if they have a different issue that they just want to have a little to locate influence their local candidates that's why I agree because it's a different entity definitely think you should talk to Secretary of State's office to make sure it's clear from their perspective how they administer and execute okay what would does anybody want to weigh in on that on how that would Paul for the record Paul Burns of Ebert I think that what we're trying to what one might be trying to get at here would be where a single person or group is kind of in control of multiple corporate entities and I don't have the perfect answer here either but that's the idea is that you don't try to avoid having a single small group being able to say well we've masked out under this one and now we're going to go to this and to this and to this that they also control it may be that with the language that you're now considering the Wyndham County subsidiary or whatever the term is independently enough run that it's really not the same as saying that the NEA out of Montpelier is in control of every decision that they may but I think that's kind of what you're trying to get at is limiting the influence of that one powerful small group who could otherwise just be controlling multiple entities and giving through each and potentially maximizing their contributions to reach that's what you're at least like as I understand it that would be the intent here is to try to eliminate that type of influence and I don't know I think it's a fair question is that would you be accomplishing that with the language that you suggest that I think is on the table now so how can we further clarify this anybody any other jurisdiction done this I wanted to federal law and they're affiliated all affiliated entities they all count toward the one contribution limit of the parent corporation under federal law that's on page 2 Connecticut similarly says a business entity cannot establish more than one political committee and I just provided a link to their definition of business entity I don't have my eye on that I came down here like I lost my order or something so I can't look it up to tell you what that definition specifically is you can get the hyperlink on you have to pull up this dot on your web page and then you can access the hyperlink from there but if I recall correctly from the Connecticut business entity I don't think it had that language regarding affiliates or some city areas I think it just goes to the individual business entities itself but I have to confirm by looking at the definition so I have another question about here how do you indirectly establish I get that on page on line 72 I get that you directly establish or administer but how do you indirectly I mean tell somebody else to do it tell that gets a little vague I mean I could see that we could say if I supported this at all it would have to say something like a corporation labor organization public interest group or other entity that directly establishes administers or establishes or administers a political act a political committee action committee can't do more than one in my mind that's clear it says that a corporation a labor what does it say a corporation labor organization public interest group or other entity that directly establishes or administers one but I got the directly or indirectly from the federal law definition but then as candy I have to stick with it I'm always I'm in terms of campaign finance I have to tell you I'm very leery of sticking with any federal law just having learned what I learned when we were oh thank you so where are we game well I lost the feeling of it I'm clear about how to be as clean about it as we'd like I like the idea of limiting how many packs I can create and I doesn't bother me that that would limit franchises or subsidiaries I mean Anthony what are you I mean this is your baby what are you thinking the less the married as far as I'm yeah I mean that's generally what I would say just this question of like talking about subsidiaries I didn't think of them as these regional groups I'm not so sure about limiting them maybe I don't feel that strongly that's why I'm not being clear about it well do we have any or fall or down or anybody do we have any examples of corporations that you know that are on our radar screens of an example of the misuse of this what is in the audience or an example of a corporation creating more than one pack that you know our group I mean do we have examples of anything that's been sort of stuck out or egregious or has bothered has risen to the top under our Vermont system and the Vermont registrations it's pretty rare that a single entity registered for more than one pack rare but not impossible I can't think of an example off the top of my head that gives you an indication of power I'm searching through the registrants from the 2018 cycle right now that you can search on our website and I'm not finding any but of course there is no particular incentive to do that now because there isn't a restriction on corporate giving in the way that would not place under this law so it's not surprising that you wouldn't find that now there are examples of where individuals have been giving through a number of different corporate entities your former colleague Senator Galbraith used to speak a lot about the idea that people could create an innumerable number of LLCs and so forth I don't know how many examples of this certainly there are examples that one could find where people have given or kind of related corporations have all given to a certain kind of differences that it costs money to set up LLCs I mean it's not an insubstantial thing to create LLCs to do an LLC? No are you kidding? It's effort it's time and it's some money right? But not much My husband set up his LLP for $20 registration fee at the Secretary of State's office that's what it cost him So this is a I was just mentioning that as a point of fact so related to the language you guys are looking at right now I always come with the perspective of can I answer questions about it from the people who have regulated by it I don't have an issue with that I have a list of kinds of subsidiaries that's in there and my answer to anybody asserting that they weren't one of those would be that it's up to them to make that argument when somebody challenges them on that basis I think most of them will look at that list and acknowledge that they are one of those things before it will be clear that they are And I think Paul's point is a good one which is this this will our limitation in other areas it's like the balloon it will push it into it will make this more possibly more relevant because when you're limited in one capacity you often try and find ways that you are limited obviously and this would then help keep that a little more consistent without allowing it to pop up in greater numbers elsewhere So I have issues with this section I don't have any issues with the other two I have enough issues with this that what I would say is what my feeling is if if the corporation or the public interest group or the labor organization has to have their name in the pack when this takes effect and we see that VPURB has now set up 23 packs that ExxonMobil has set up 23 packs we can revisit it I just have enough concerns about it right now that I would not feel comfortable defending this that's Anthony what do you think? I can go with that You what? I can go with what you just said So we should be able to get a clean copy of the original with your the first amendment there about the the name Yes Hello Mr. Protan I got a chat with you for a moment The private or just right here Which are we? Like out here That means in private So could I just one second first Is we have this I believe we are dealing with this until three o'clock Is it possible to have a clean copy and we can vote on it? The fourth three Yes we'll get him Would you prefer a straight out format? Whichever is easier we've heard that in some cases because of workload it's easier to do an amendment but whatever is easier for you Okay I prefer strike all but on this one I don't care All right Just two seconds So we'll do that We'll take a break right now for 15 minutes Really? So committee Senator Bray wasn't here when we made our decisions we'd hopefully agree with our decisions We had three issues to decide one was the underlying question of whether we should limit contributions to candidates and political parties from only individuals, and political parties and we all agreed on that then we had the question of should the name of any path the founder of the path the leader of the pack I was going to say good song founder Should the organization the entity that creates the path have to embed their name in the path and we all agreed with that and then the third question was should we limit the number of packs that any entity can form and we felt there were so many questions that we couldn't and what we would do is since they have to have their names in their packs now anyway in four years we'll come back and say it's a problem or it's not a problem that was the I have a clean draft here draft 1.1 as of 2.35 this afternoon that we can look at and okay Betsy if you want to just tell us what we're voting on alright yeah Betsy and I just want to say to council I structured it as a strike all just to have it all in one place and so you'll see the sections going in chronological order so it's a little backwards from the main picture but it starts out with that definition of a pack this came from the amendment you just reviewed page 1 allows someone to start a pack before they reach current law is $1000 threshold page 2 starting in line 7 and 9 same concept you can start a pack before you reach the $1000 threshold starting on page 2 line 10 there is the requirement that a pack's name shall include the full name of its connected organization if applicable adding in that if applicable and then it says or clearly recognize abbreviation or acronym Chris just so that you know that if applicable is there just because in the few instances where you have the neighborhood of ellen street that organizes to save the elmetries there really isn't any found anywhere so that's not only in its name there but at the bottom of page 2 like you already saw in your amendment if applicable when they register they'd have to include the name of their connected organization or the abbreviation or acronym then you're moving on over to page 4 I feel a little bit how are they going to know if it's applicable other than call it well there is a definition of connected organization so they'll know that a connected organization means for a more informal committee of two or more people for a labor organization so they'll have to decide they'll probably call up the director say what's this about the director probably say are you a connected organization here's the definition so the definition of connected organization is just not in this draft it is actually on page 4 so you'll see that where on page 4 it starts with line 3 and subsection D as using the section with the definition of connected organization what I removed from this draft is what appeared in your previous amendment which was that limit on the number of packs a connected organization could establish so that is out of this one it's not in here anymore it's been removed so you got rid of that now you just have the definition of a connected organization it's the same thing you looked at before except I got rid of the language to say including any organizational parent subsidiary branch division department because it didn't seem to matter anymore if you're having the pack name included in it and it would allow would hopefully lessen the confusion between the state NEA and the county NEA so we'll see if it's a problem call it wait and see there you go I did include the directly or indirectly because of some of the conversation or I kept that in about here real-terms association says hey employee take this money and go start a pack to address that situation if that's okay I can take it out no it can be there it's going to be a little bit harder to but it's there members of the connected organization do not change then section 3 starting at the bottom of page 4 and moving on is the same exact language as the bill was introduced with the prohibition on anybody but an individual pack or party giving it to a candidate or party so same exact language in the bills introduced no change there bottom of page 7 same effective date that weird date is just the date of a new election cycle after our 2020 general election and then at the top of page 8 I just changed the title of the bill to read and act relating the person to authorize to make contributions to candidates and political parties that was the original title but then also and a political name committee names just since you're addressing that issue as well so I know the answer to this but on page 6 notwithstanding notwithstanding that means we've basically been negating the words that came before it that's right, that's saying despite the contribution limits above where it says any single source can give to a candidate or party only individuals, packs and parties can give to a candidate or party that's right does somebody want to make a motion? I would make a motion I would make a motion that we move S47 the strike all S47 well I guess our first motion is to accept the amendment I would move that we accept the strike all amendment of S47 draft 1.1 S47 as amended by draft 1.5 any second okay, do you want to call the roll? I'd be thrilled to Clarkson, I'm listening here because she was like a buffer to me I guess start with me Clarkson, yes Brett, yes Polina, yes no second motion I would move S47 as amended be reported favorably to be reported favorably by this committee I'll second that okay can I change my vote on the first one? yes okay so the second one is to move S47 favorably and that would begin with Clarkson, yes Brett, yes Polina, yes Anthony would you like to report this? sure you have to do this that's right yes, you have to do that and you record it you don't have to do it you have to do Betsy's little thing Betsy's writing out the summary so yeah I just didn't understand why Clarkson comes before Brett I don't understand because she's the Clark I don't know, I'm really missing Claire okay I can switch that around just make it alphabetical alphabetical okay so thank you