Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Senate Privileges and Elections Committee Votes for Virginia to Remain an Oligarchy

—

by

sherlockj
in

Sen. Chap Petersen speaking on senate floor. Credit: Virginia Mercury

by James C. Sherlock

Oligarchy: a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.

The Privileges and Elections Committee of the Virginia Senate has voted down two bills by Senator Chap Petersen that would have restored some semblance of a democratic republic status to Virginia.

Senate Bill 803 would have for the first time set campaign finance limits in Virginia. Part of the bill summary:

Prohibits persons from making any single contribution, or any combination of contributions, that exceeds $20,000 to any one candidate for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, or the General Assembly in any one election cycle.

If SB803 had been signed into law, the contributions of persons, campaign committees, political committees, and corporations could not as thoroughly dominate Virginia politics in the future as they do today.

No more one-stop shopping for $250,000 campaign contributions. For $20,000 I expect my calls to be returned. For $250,000 I expect more.

Senate Bill 804 would have prohibited campaign donations by public utilities. Dominion’s river of ratepayer money flowing to politicians would dry up. What, exactly, do we think Dominion’s take-away is from that vote other than that the bazaar is still open?

The two bills were supported in the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee only by Democrats. Just not enough Democrats. And no Republicans.

So we are left with state-sanctioned political corruption.

I understand all of the reasons why incumbent politicians do not want to limit campaign contributions. None of them are good enough.

None have proven good enough in 45 other states.

Virginia is one of only five states (Alabama, Nebraska, Oregon, Utah) that have no campaign contribution limits on state and local contests.

  • Only eleven states (Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Virginia) impose no contribution limits on individual donors;
  • Only five states — Alabama, Nebraska, Oregon, Utah and Virginia—allow corporations to contribute an unlimited amount of money to state campaigns;
  • Only 13 states, Virginia included, allow PACs to contribute unlimited amounts of money to state campaigns;
  • Nineteen states, including Virginia, impose no restrictions on the ability of state party committees to contribute money to a candidate’s campaign.

Neither party can hold its head high on this, but in the Senate, some Democrats are acquitting themselves well.

The 2023 Virginia Senate – In Favor. Virginia Senate stalwarts in 2023 have been Chap Petersen (D), for whom this is a signature issue, and David Marsden (D), who co-sponsored Sen. Petersen’s SB 803.

Democrats who voted in the Privileges and Elections Committee in favor of both 803 and 804 were Creigh Deeds, Adam Ebbin, and Jennifer McClellan.

Democrats Monty Mason and Jennifer Boysko voted for SB 803 but against SB 804.

The 2023 Virginia Senate – Opposed.  In Senate Privileges and Elections, those voting against SB 803  were: Spruill (D), Howell (D), Vogel (R), Reeves (R), Ruff (R), Peake (R), McDougle (R), Surovell (D), Bell (D), Hackworth (R).

Against SB 804 were: Spruill (D), Howell(D), Vogel(R), Reeves (R), Ruff (R), Peake (R), McDougle (R), Surovell (D), Mason (D), Boysko (D), Bell (D), and Hackworth (R).

Bottom line.  There is no way to sugar-coat it.

Unlimited campaign donations in Virginia are a source of political corruption, real or perceived. Perception of corruption corrodes public trust. But too much of it is real.

No politician can take huge campaign donations from a single source and pretend, even to himself or herself, that that source does not expect reciprocity. To pretend otherwise is to insult the intelligence of the electorate.

Virginia politicians need as a group to re-think this.

From the United States Constitution.

Article IV Relationships Between the States

Section 4 Republican Form of Government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government …

A republic is a form of government in which power is given to the people and the people select representatives to govern on their behalf.

Unlimited campaign contributions make those representatives visibly more beholden to big contributors than to the people themselves.

We need to stop it.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

17 responses to “Senate Privileges and Elections Committee Votes for Virginia to Remain an Oligarchy”

  1. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    How about a bill requiring Senate committees to reflect the political makeup of the Senate? The ratio of Dems and Reps.

    The present structure of the energy committee makes a mockery of democracy.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Dominion Energy Committee

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        DEC the halls with boughs of money.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      David, party ID is no predictor on these energy regulatory bills. Again, the failure to let the SCC make the key decisions and the failure to think of the consumers first is a bipartisan pattern. Had a nice chat with my favorite enviro lawyer yesterday, and with all our differences, we are very aligned on restoring the SCC’s role.

  2. James McCarthy Avatar
    James McCarthy

    Legislature: a small group of people having control of a jurisdiction. Democratize the GA – eliminate the Senate in favor of a unicameral body.

  3. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Great column. This is THE biggest issue facing Virginia.

    And those donations are used for far more than just campaign expenses.

    The key point from the attached article: “—Behavior that would get lawmakers locked up in other states or at the federal level is perfectly fine in the Old Dominion. Virginia is the only state where lawmakers can raise unlimited campaign donations from anyone, including corporations and unions, and spend the money on themselves.

    https://apnews.com/article/fb79d9ce3d0445faab326dc21b808bdd

    And progressives wonder why conservatives want to see a smaller state government.

    Our state government is hopelessly corrupt.

    The less government, the better.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      yeah, yeah, yeah

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/953c8693ba8b1875dcde714fd319bc09a3254ce69c83b862795e90ae6aa540d2.jpg

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bcae03a1c26f17a3bb7527f7f2bb9ca5dacf891f6299e8fabcf0a1769f6e51d4.jpg

  4. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    First, a 40 member Senate in a state of almost 9 million folks is kind of an oligarchy by itself. But that’s no reason to go unicameral, which is hardly progress. It might argue for more seats, smaller districts. The death of this bill, and others like it, is usually a bipartisan execution. As it was again.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      What might be a reason to establish a unicameral legislature? A unicameral body of 140 seems appropriate. Or 200 members, two for each present delegate district.

  5. WayneS Avatar
    WayneS

    “Privileges and Elections”

    Even the name of the committee shouts Oligarchy!

  6. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    The only way to cut the spigot off is to vote them out. And there is no guarantee that the next crowd of lawmakers will not do the same exact thing. The electorate simply does not have the institutional inside knowledge of how corrupt it has all become.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      IMO, the electorate smells the rot even if they cannot articulate it. That’s what those at the trough rely upon.

  7. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    I can’t get that upset about the defeat of SB 803. If passed, I don’t think it would have made much difference. Those who want to give lots of money to candidates will always find a way. For example, the bill would have put limits on contributions by “political committees”. What is a “political committee”? The bill does not define it. Is the VEA a political committee? Is the NRA a political committee? Some would say so. Those organizations could claim that they exist to keep their members informed and to provide certain services, such as gun safety education. Secondly, the bill did not put a limit on contributions by a political party to a candidate. So, if someone wants to give $100,000 to support a candidate for the State Senate, he/she could give $20,000 to the candidate directly; the spouse could give $20,000 to the candidate; and one of their kids in college could give $20,000. The donor could then give $40,000 to the local chapter of the political party of the candidate with implicit understanding that it would be passed on to the candidate in the party’s name. Voila! There would be your $100,000 contribution, all legal under the proposed legislation. And, let’s not forget those “independent” organizations that can raise unlimited funds and spend them on ads and other political activities as long as they are done “independently” of the candidate. Organizations such as Dog Lovers for XXX. Oops! The introduced bill did not require such organizations to operate independently of the candidate’s campaign.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      I agree.

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Would you have voted against 803 because you thought it imperfect? I really want to know. If so, you have invented an excuse that I had not considered.

      Are you really looking for perfection in the first campaign finance law?

      Perfect, in this case, is truly the enemy of good enough to set the precedent.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        I would have probably voted for it, for symbolic purposes. However, when legislation like this is passed with the promise that it will end “oligarchy” and money continues to find its way into the process, public cynicism only increases.

        I don’t subscribe to the idea that the legislature is corrupt. Special interests generally don’t make political contributions in order to “buy” legislators. They give money to legislators who share their views and support the issues they support.

        In my experience, there is no quid pro quo. The advantage that special interests get with their contributions is access. Virginia legislators are short of time and staff. On complex issues, they will give an audience to those who gave them money and, if they are inclined in that direction anyway, will go with the information provided. Now, Steve Haner has been in the weeds much more than I have and he may have a different view.

        Updated: The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that I would have voted against the bill. Because money is going to find its way into campaigns in some manner, I would prefer that it be as transparent as possible. Now, if George Soros, Michael Bills, Dominion, the hospital association, etc. give a lot money to a candidate, the public can know about it and vote accordingly. There are already too many places in which to launder campaign money, e.g. the various leadership PACS, without encouraging the spread of that practice.

  8. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    The voters have the chance every two years to vote someone out of office if they feel that official is too beholden to one individual or organization. Furthermore, the “oligarchy” is due for a major shake up this fall when the new districts become effective.

Leave a Reply

Read More