House Speaker says May 11 adjournment for Vermont Legislature is in view

by Anne Galloway May 5, 2013 vtdigger.org House Speaker Shap Smith says hes optimistic the Legislature can finish its business by May 11 even with the cancellation of a Saturday, May 4 session. Lawmakers will be meeting on Monday, which is typically a day off from floor sessions in the House and Senate.
The Speaker, who leads an overwhelming majority of Democrats in the Vermont House of Representatives, says he believes differences on outstanding issues between the House, the Democratic majority in the Vermont Senate and the governor (also a Democrat) can be worked out by Saturday.
On paper, House and Senate officials appear to be far apart on the must-pass tax bill. The only points of agreement so far include a municipal tax exemption for blighted residential property and the removal a $10,000 floor for the fuel gross receipts tax. Leading Democrats, however, downplayed the remaining sticking points.
Smith holds out hope that the House and Senate can reach agreement on a number other controversial issues in the next seven days, including an end of life choice proposal, campaign finance reform, a pre-K funding proposal, a flexible pathways bill that would enable high school students to enroll in more college courses, an omnibus drug bill designed to tackle prescription drug and methamphetamine abuse and an energy efficiency bill that encourages electric car use and proposes loans for weatherization projects.
There are, of course, a number of bills that likely wont make the adjournment deadline.
A bill banning genetically engineered organisms may not make it through the legislative process. House Judiciary is concerned that Monsanto, a major manufacturer of GMOs, would sue the state over a ban.
Smith said there isnt enough time for the the childcare unionization bill to make it through the Senate and the House at this point. The controversial bill has been a lightning rod for bitter debate for the last three sessions.
The House and Senate are at loggerheads over the end of life legislation.The Senate rejected a version of the Death with Dignity bill earlier this session that was similar to the legislation the House passed last week. Sen. Bob Hartwell, D-Bennington, said he will present his colleagues a compromise end of life amendment this week that would give physicians some legal immunity and shorten the required terminal illness diagnosis from six months to three months.
In the House version, a person can request a lethal dose of prescription drugs with a six month diagnosis of a terminal illness. Smith said the House bill includes important safeguards patients must be advised of palliative and hospice care options that lawmakers want to see in the compromise version of the bill. It looks like the legislation will not go to conference committee, but will be amended on the Senate floor and sent to the House for further amendment or approval.
The campaign finance reform bill is set to go to the House floor on Tuesday. The Speaker favors a $5,000 cap on donations from any single entity to Super PACs, even though the limitation could invite legal challenge, according to Cheryl Hanna, a constitutional law professor at Vermont Law School.
I think our bill is very defensible, Smith said. I think any campaign finance bill under this current U.S. Supreme Court is going to be subject to legal challenge given the fact that this current Supreme Court doesnt seem to believe there should be any restrictions on money in politics, Smith said. My view of the world is that our constituents are sick of secret political action committees spending money to influence decisions we were sent here to address. If courts want to say we cant do that then maybe we should change the Constitution or the membership of the court.
Smith does not support a ban on corporate donations, which would limit the amount of money individuals could contribute through a limitless number of corporate entities. A prohibition on corporate money was proposed in the Senate and ultimately failed. It has gained no traction in the House.
The corporate ban, in his view, is unnecessary because he says the information is disclosed on the Secretary of States website. At least they can see where that money is coming from, Smith said. It gets disclosed. When you have the money hidden in secret PACs that dont actually have to disclose very often, I think thats a very big problem.
Smith says a ban on corporate giving would drive companies deeper into secrecy.
Lobbyists for corporations give money to representatives and senators for campaigns. They also sometimes bundle individual contributions to candidates. The information is available in PDF, nonsearchable spreadsheets on the Secretary of States Website and does not include employment information so its difficult to track the individuals associations with companies and other entities.
Lobbyists also organize advertising campaigns and devote weeks to pinning down lawmakers in the halls of the Statehouse. Recent lobbyist disclosure reports reveal that companies, unions and advocacy groups spent $8 million on Statehouse lobbying over the last year, and more than $500,000 alone on a successful bid to get lawmakers to drop a penny-per-ounce excise tax on sugar sweetened beverages.
Smith said better reporting including more timely access to electronic records is a better way to address concerns about the influence of corporations on the Legislature. The Legislature, however, has not budgeted funds to update the campaign finance website. Smith says lawmakers havent been able to get complete clarity on what the cost would be.
If we have clarity next week, maybe we can find the money, Smith said. Jim Condos has said the cost of developing a plan for a campaign finance database is $50,000, and implementation of the IT project would cost $600,000 to $1 million. Lawmakers have said the secretary ought to be able to find that sum in his budget.