WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

H 793

An act relating to removing the power of Vermont corporations to spend money on election activities

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Michelle Bos-Lun and 23 co-sponsors

The bill would prohibit Vermont-registered corporations from using corporate funds for direct or indirect election activities, reducing corporate influence in campaigns.

Read first time and referred to the Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · H 793

Summary of Bill H. 793 (Session 2025-2026) — Vermont

Purpose and intent

  • The bill proposes removing the authority of Vermont corporations to spend money on election activities. In other words, it aims to prohibit or significantly restrict corporate expenditures in support of political campaigns and related election activities within the state.
  • The primary objective appears to be reducing corporate influence in elections and ensuring that campaign spending is not funded by corporate treasury resources.

Key provisions and changes (as inferred from the bill title and typical mechanisms)

  • Prohibition or limitation on corporate political spending: The core change would bar or limit corporations registered in Vermont from using corporate funds to directly or indirectly influence elections (e.g., campaign contributions, independent expenditures, or electioneering activities).
  • Definitions and scope: The bill would define what constitutes “election activities,” and which entities are affected (e.g., all corporations doing business in Vermont, including for-profit corporations; possibly excluding certain entities such as nonprofits if specified).
  • Enforcement and penalties: Provisions would outline enforcement mechanisms, reporting requirements, and penalties for violations (civil penalties, administrative actions, or other remedies).
  • Compliance requirements: Corporations might be required to maintain separation between corporate funds and political activity, or to establish compliant internal processes to prevent corporate spending on elections.
  • Preemption and conflicts: If Vermont has other campaign finance or election laws, the bill could address conflicts with federal law or other state statutes and clarify how this change interacts with existing rules.

Who would be affected

  • Vermont-registered corporations: The primary affected group, including corporations doing business in Vermont and possibly those incorporated elsewhere if statewide reach is intended.
  • Corporate officers and decision-makers: Individuals responsible for corporate political expenditures could be directly impacted by prohibitions or penalties.
  • Political actors and campaigns: Campaign committees, political action committees (if applicable in Vermont), and other entities relying on corporate spending would be affected by any shifts in available funding sources.
  • Public and voters: The electorate could experience changes in campaign financing dynamics, potentially reducing corporate influence and increasing reliance on individual donors or other permitted funding sources.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Introduction and referrals: The bill was introduced and referred to the Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs as of January 28, 2026.
  • Sponsor information: The bill has a broad list of co-sponsors, indicating cross-party or widespread legislative interest. Notable co-sponsors include Chloe Tomlinson, Barbara Rachelson, Kate McCann, Edye Graning, and many others.
  • Committee process: As of the stated action history, the bill is with the Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs for study, potential hearings, amendments, and recommendations before floor consideration.
  • Next steps: If advanced by the committee, the bill would go to the full House for debate, potential amendments, and a vote. Subsequent steps would depend on Senate consideration and any reconciliation process, followed by possible signature or veto by the governor.

Practical considerations and context

  • Policy trade-offs: Proponents would argue the bill strengthens democratic equality by limiting corporate influence; opponents might raise concerns about First Amendment implications (if applicable under state law) or potential impacts on political participation and campaign finance ecosystems.
  • Implementation challenges: Defining “corporate spending” and “election activities,” ensuring effective enforcement, and addressing entities that may route spending through intermediaries or non-profit entities.

If you’d like, I can tailor this summary to include more precise language from the bill text (once available), compare it with existing Vermont election finance laws, or provide a potential impact assessment for different stakeholder groups.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.