Vermont Senate committee keeps ranked‑choice study, debates lowering PAC reporting threshold to match candidates

The Vermont Senate Committee on Government Operations voted to retain a study provision on ranked‑choice voting in a broad elections bill and spent the meeting debating campaign‑finance reporting thresholds for political committees and independent expenditure groups.

Committee members said the House version of the bill removed the $500 candidate reporting threshold so that registered candidates must file campaign‑finance reports regardless of whether they have raised or received $500; the committee discussed whether to lower the $1,000 threshold for political committees and independent‑expenditure entities to $500 or to match the House’s change to a $0 threshold.

The discussion centered on what triggers reporting. Tim Deppler, legislative counsel, told the committee that statute already requires a report to the secretary of state for a mass‑media activity if a person “makes expenditures for any one mass media activity, total of $500 or more, within 45 days of an election,” and that the file must identify the person who made the expenditure and the amount, date and purpose. Deppler said the bill’s draft removes the $500 contribution threshold for candidate reporting and makes expenditures the reporting trigger: “You have to report all expenses, regardless of how much you raise,” he said.

Matt Birong, chair of the House Government Operations Committee, joined the Senate committee by phone and confirmed the House language removing the $500 candidate reporting threshold: “The $500 threshold for reporting campaign finance for candidates has been struck. And now 0 is the threshold that will require a registered candidate ... to file campaign finance reports.” Birong said some members of his committee wanted expenditures to be treated the same for political committees as for candidates.

Several senators said they favored greater transparency. One committee member summarized a common view: at minimum, independent expenditure groups should “be as transparent as we are required to be.” Other senators raised practical concerns about small donations and the mechanics of reporting and rollover funds; committee members and counsel discussed how surplus campaign funds can be rolled into subsequent campaigns and how donor reporting thresholds for inflows (mentioned during the meeting as reporting for donors over $100) remain unchanged by the bill.

Committee members asked staff to seek more detail from the House committee and the secretary of state’s office about why the House struck the $500 registration threshold for candidates and whether the House took testimony on aligning political‑committee thresholds with candidates. Senators also suggested consulting the attorney general’s office for legal guidance on the change.

On the ranked‑choice issue, members were divided. A committee straw vote to retain the ranked‑choice provision produced a roughly 3‑2 outcome in committee discussion; several senators urged keeping the study and moving the bill forward so the legislature can review implementation details later. Supporters said municipal experience (cited during the meeting: Burlington’s use of ranked choice) showed no large increase in spoiled ballots and argued the study would help address misinformation and training needs. Opponents said the subject remains controversial among some members of the Republican caucus and that keeping ranked choice in the bill could imperil passage on the floor.

The committee did not adopt a final, comprehensive rewrite on political‑committee thresholds at the meeting. Members agreed to continue discussions, to contact House counterparts and the secretary of state, and to reconvene the matter at the committee’s next opportunity. The committee chair said members would “mull it over” and aim to find compromises before a final committee vote.