Senate committee reviews bill to expand reporting of paid political ads, seeks clarifying language

MONTPELIER — The Senate Committee on Government Operations on May 19 took up H.686, a proposal to broaden reporting requirements for paid advertisements connected to lobbying activity, but lawmakers asked counsel to draft clearer language before any final action.

The committee heard from Matt Musgrave, introduced as regional director for Vermont for the Associated Builders and Contractors of New Hampshire and Vermont, who cautioned that the bill as drafted could blur the line between lobbying and ordinary association or educational communications. “So, technically, I'm a lobbyist,” Musgrave said, “However, I'm not what you would consider to be a contract lobbyist. I'm an association executive.” He said that organizations sometimes wear multiple hats — advocacy, education and a political-action committee — and asked the panel for explicit guidance on which activities must be reported.

Legislative counsel (Tim) told the committee the core legal difference is purpose. “For the purpose of influencing legislative or administrative action,” he said, is the operative language for lobbying; electioneering, by contrast, centers on communications that refer to a clearly identified candidate and promote or oppose that candidate. Tim said some communications could fall into both categories depending on content and thresholds, and noted existing reporting thresholds under campaign finance and lobbying law that can already trigger disclosure obligations.

Members debated the bill's monetary threshold for reporting. The draft uses a $1,000 threshold; one member urged raising that to $5,000 or $10,000 to reflect modern digital advertising costs, while others noted that a small social media buy can reach tens of thousands of people and that the threshold meaningfully determines who must file.

Lawmakers also pressed whether neutral or educational communications — such as compliance guides or informational mailings to an organization's members — would be captured. Musgrave said an organization might run a neutral informational mailing to explain a new law without taking a position; several members asked to carve such materials out. Tim and other committee members agreed that communications that are purely educational and not intended to influence legislative or administrative action should not trigger a lobbying advertising report, but several members asked the bill to state that explicitly so the exemption was clear.

Sean Sheehan, elections director in the Secretary of State's office, told the committee the office can prepare FAQs and training and mentioned existing guides for both lobbying and campaign finance. “We can put pieces in here. We have the guide to lobbying, the guide to campaign finance,” Sheehan said, adding the office would help clarify how to use the advertising-report description field to make disclosures intelligible to the public.

Committee members agreed they did not want filers to be able to 'choose their own adventure' by filing in the forum most favorable to them; instead, they asked counsel to draft language that would avoid double reporting (for example, if an activity is already disclosed under campaign finance law it would not also require a separate lobbying advertising report). The chair said the committee would not take a final vote at the session and asked counsel to prepare clarifying language for a future meeting.

The committee adjourned without a vote on H.686; members asked staff and the Secretary of State's office to prepare guidance and model reporting language for consideration when the bill returns to the panel.