Committee amends H.244 to exclude job postings from local-ad requirement amid data and federal-funds questions

A House Government Operations & Military Affairs committee instructed legislative counsel to amend H.244 to exclude employment and job-posting advertisements from a provision that would require a percentage of state advertising spending be placed with local media, but members disagreed on the statute's percentage target and said they lack the data and testimony needed to finalize the measure.

The change was described on the record by John Gray, Office of the Legislative Council, who said the proposed edit “is a very simple amendment” to subsection c of H.244 that would add employment searches and job postings to the bill’s list of exceptions. Gray said the amendment would leave the remainder of the bill’s 80% requirement intact for other types of advertising.

Supporters and witnesses told the committee the goal is to direct more state advertising dollars to local news organizations to shore up struggling outlets. “Our smaller, especially our smaller, more rural news organizations are are dying,” said Mister Hines, a witness testifying in support, adding that “every additional advertisement counts” toward keeping community newsrooms viable.

Wendy Mays, executive director of the Vermont Association of Broadcasters, told lawmakers that local broadcast outlets can sell digital advertising, undercutting the argument that digital buys must go directly to Meta or Google. “It is entirely possible to purchase digital advertising through local [stations],” Mays said, and she urged the state to route more digital spending through Vermont outlets so that tax dollars “stay here and help with the news collections.”

Committee members repeatedly raised two technical issues: whether the bill would apply to federal grant funds and whether the state can even determine how much it currently spends on advertising. Several members said agencies do not track advertising spending in a centralized way. “They don't have clear systems for keeping track of that,” said a committee member during the discussion of agency accounting, describing advertising spending as scattered across departments.

Lawmakers debated changing the numerical target. Several speakers called 80% too high; some proposed 70% as a compromise anchored to previously observed local shares. A witness said their partial research suggested “about 60%” of identified advertising dollars were already spent locally and noted a Department (referred to in testimony as DHR) figure of roughly 65% in one bucket of spending. Committee members described the proposed 80% as a starting point that could be revised by the Senate.

Members also asked that the bill's language explicitly avoid hamstringing agencies’ ability to use federal funds where federal strings apply. Committee counsel indicated the draft could be revised to limit the requirement to state-funded or otherwise “eligible” funds if members preferred that drafting approach.

No recorded roll-call vote on passage was taken during the discussion. Legislative counsel updated the draft in the committee meeting to add the employment/job-postings exception; committee members agreed to continue the conversation and seek additional testimony (including from the Department of Buildings and General Services) before final action.

The committee conversation combined policy goals (supporting local media and transparency about advertising spending) with process questions about fiscal scope and enforceability. Lawmakers left open the possibility of voting the measure out of committee with the new exception and continuing fact-finding in the Senate, or delaying a vote until additional agency testimony and spending data could be obtained.