Frequently Asked Questions
The Basics
-
The Corporate Power Reset would end corporate and dark money spending in Vermont elections by redefining corporate powers to exclude the ability to spend money on elections.
Election spending would instead have to come from real people, with their names attached and legally required identifying information, rather than through untraceable donations from corporate entities.
-
The framework does not infringe on any individual's right to speak, donate, volunteer, organize, or participate in politics. It also does not regulate ordinary business operations such as hiring, pricing, advertising, or day-to-day organizational activity. It does not prevent businesses, nonprofits, unions, or advocacy organizations from speaking out on public issues, educating the public, lobbying, publishing research, or engaging with the government.
The Corporate Power Reset addresses a narrow but significant category of corporate activity: the use of corporate money to support or oppose candidates in elections.
-
Yes, it would apply to spending on all state election candidates
-
No. The Corporate Power Reset does not regulate what people can or cannot say, and it would not regulate speech, campaigns, candidates, or elections in Vermont.
Instead, it recognizes that the State of Vermont has the authority to determine what powers it grants to the artificial entities it creates. Political participation remains fully available to the people of Vermont and elsewhere, while the corporate form is redefined strictly as a business and organizational tool, not a political actor.
-
orporations and other artificial entities are created and empowered by the State of Vermont, receiving significant benefits including limited liability, perpetual existence, and other legal protections that make large-scale business and organizational activity possible.
Because corporations have been granted these sweeping powers, courts have generally concluded that corporate power includes the right to spend on politics. But since Vermont retains the authority to alter or revoke the corporate charters we issue, we have the authority as a state to remove political spending from that grant of power.
-
Vermont has a long history of leadership on people-powered politics, from Town Hall events to policies like Election Day registration and vote-by-mail, which make participation easier here than almost anywhere else. Vermonters understand that power in politics should belong to the people, not the highest bidder, and widely believe the state should act to reduce corporate influence in its elections
Frequently Asked Questions
Small Businesses and Local Organizations
-
No, the Corporate Power Reset would arguably give small businesses a stronger voice in Vermont politics. Small businesses are among the groups most often drowned out when large corporations and dark money networks use spending to shape the system for everyone else.
The framework would not stop small business owners from speaking, donating personally, volunteering, endorsing, organizing, contacting lawmakers, joining associations, or advocating for policies that matter to them.
-
Yes. Resetting corporate power in this way does not restrict individual political rights. Business owners and employees may still donate personal funds, volunteer for campaigns, speak publicly, advocate for or against candidates or ballot measures, and run for office.
-
Yes. Businesses would remain free to advocate on policy issues, communicate with lawmakers, take public stances, participate in industry discussions, and lobby for their interests. Only spending that supports or opposes candidates would be restricted.
-
No. The Corporate Power Reset would apply equally to businesses based in and outside Vermont. If an artificial entity does business in Vermont, including by trying to spend money to support or oppose candidates in Vermont elections, Vermont can enforce its laws against it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Nonprofits and Advocacy Groups
-
No. Nonprofits would remain free to educate the public, speak about issues, publish research, organize in communities, lobby for or against policy interests, host forums, and engage with the government. Nonprofit groups could also produce factual, educational information about elected officials . What nonprofits could not do is use organizational funds to support or oppose candidates.
-
Yes. Nonprofits could continue to lobby, contact lawmakers, testify at hearings, support or oppose legislation, communicate with agencies, and advocate on policy issues. The Corporate Power Reset does not restrict participation in public policy debates; it addresses election spending, not ordinary advocacy or lobbying
-
Yes, nonprofits could continue to speak about public issues and educate the public. However, spending money to support or oppose a ballot measure would need to be done through a political action committee funded by individuals, rather than through the nonprofit's general treasury. Nonprofits could continue their issue-based work while election spending is handled transparently through the appropriate political vehicle.
-
No. The Corporate Power Reset would apply equally to businesses based in and outside Vermont. If an artificial entity does business in Vermont, including by trying to spend money to support or oppose candidates in Vermont elections, Vermont can enforce its laws against it.
-
No. Nonprofits would not be required to disclose donors for issue advocacy, educational work, or charitable activities. Privacy in association is a vital element of freedom of speech, and this Corporate Power Reset is not aimed at restricting such rights. People should be free and encouraged to donate anonymously to controversial causes without fear of retaliation.
This nonprofit activity is, however, distinct from spending intended to influence elections. While standard nonprofits exist traditionally to advance social welfare and community interests, Political Action Committees (PACs) are established specifically to influence elections.
When individuals choose to contribute to elections through a political committee, those contributions would be disclosed under campaign finance law to protect the integrity of our elections — ensuring that money spent on elections is traceable to real people rather than hidden behind a corporate entity.
-
A 501(c)(4) organization could still endorse a candidate and communicate that endorsement to its members. However, it could not fund ads, mailers, or other paid communications supporting or opposing a candidate. To fund that activity, supporters would need to form a political committee funded transparently by individuals.
-
Yes, provided the activity is nonpartisan. These activities remain educational rather than election spending, so long as the organization does not endorse, oppose, or urge support for a specific candidate or party.
-
Yes. Political committees would remain the proper vehicle for election spending, and they would continue to operate as usual, they just could not receive corporate money. PACs are required to disclose their donors, allowing voters to see who is seeking to influence election outcomes.
Frequently Asked Questions
Unions and Membership Organizations
-
Unions and membership organizations would be affected in the same way as all other artificial entities. They would remain free to organize their members, advocate on policy issues, communicate with lawmakers, bargain collectively, and speak out on issues that affect their interests and members. Only election spending by the organization itself would be restricted.
-
Yes. All ordinary union operations would continue as before, and workers would retain all their individual political rights. Unions and membership organizations could continue to speak about issues affecting workers and members, conduct research, host events, lobby, testify at hearings, and take public positions on policy issues.
-
On balance, no. In the years since Citizens United, the largest corporate interests have been able to dominate elections through untraceable spending. The Corporate Power Reset would shift power back toward voters, who should have the final say in Vermont's elections.
Frequently Asked Questions
Other Political Spending and PACs
-
Election spending is money or resources used to directly or indirectly support or oppose a candidate or ballot measure. This includes monetary contributions, paid advertisements, mailers, and other campaign activity intended to influence an election's outcome.
-
Yes. PACs remain the proper vehicle for individuals to voluntarily join together and raise money to support or oppose a candidate or ballot measure. Under the Corporate Power Reset, PAC funding would need to come from real, disclosed human beings rather than from artificial entities with anonymous donors.
-
PACs are voluntary associations of individuals who pool their money to support or oppose candidates and ballot measures. They differ from corporations in that they exist explicitly for political activity, their donors must be disclosed, and voters can trace their funding back to its original source. The Corporate Power Reset treats PACs as the correct vehicle for election spending.
-
No. Corporations and other artificial entities would not be permitted to route money through PACs to spend on elections. Contributions to political committees would need to come from individuals, ensuring that every dollar spent on Vermont elections can be traced to a real person rather than a corporate donor.
-
Super PACs are distinct in that they cannot donate to candidates directly but may raise unlimited sums to spend independently of candidates. Super PACs would continue to operate, but they could no longer receive funding from corporate treasuries.
-
Yes. The Corporate Power Reset would not limit how much any individual can contribute to elections — only the ability of corporations and other artificial entities to do so. However, wealthy individuals could no longer funnel their political expenditures anonymously through dark money organizations.
Frequently Asked Questions
Constitutionality
-
We believe so. The Corporate Power Reset does not restrict anyone's First Amendment right to free speech; rather, it redefines the powers the state grants to the corporate entities it creates.
States create corporations, set the terms of their charters, and reserve the right to alter or revoke those charters at any time. We believe this authority includes the ability to remove political spending from the powers granted to corporations.
-
In Citizens United v. FEC (2010), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and other associations.
The Corporate Power Reset is not a restriction on speech — it is a redefinition of the power states grant to the corporations they charter. State authority to charter and empower corporations has been repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court over the decades. The Corporate Power Reset would not overturn Citizens United, but if successful, it would render the ruling largely irrelevant in practice.
-
It's possible. Hawaii's Corporate Power Reset legislation has been challenged, but no decision in that case has been rendered yet.
For more information on the Hawaii court proceedings and the legality of this approach, visit Support for the Corporate Power Reset section of our website.