The year 1777 was a big one in Vermont politics. They declared themselves an independent republic. Then they drafted the first state constitution that outlawed slavery and rescinded property ownership as a requirement for the right to vote.

Anarchy broke out soon after leading to a downward spiral they have yet to recover from.

Within months, Vermont’s downward spiral led to an abyss of disorder, violence, poverty and misery that they have yet to recover from, as the rest of the world is powerless to do anything but look on in horror.

Well that didn’t happen, but you might have thought so at the time. What actually happened is that they started minting their own coins, created their own postal service, founded the University of Vermont and joined the good old United States in 1791.

Today, they rank first in the nation in teacher-student ratio and percentage of fully immunized 2-year-olds.

Earlier in the week, I saw Vermont Gov. Howard Dean on Washington Journal on C-SPAN talking about recent developments in Vermont politics.

Vermont is ending the 20th century the way it began in 1777: passing revolutionary legislation. Of course, several of the callers were convinced that Vermont is headed to hell in a handbasket.

One of these pieces of legislation created the civil union for homosexual couples. According to Dean, about half of Vermonters are against the law with 42 percent being in favor of it.

Dean said although it is unpopular the courts in Vermont ruled that denying homosexual couples the financial benefits their heterosexual counterparts receive is discriminatory.

Dean stressed that they are not trying to legislate for the rest of the country, but just righting a wrong in Vermont. Any difficulties with the law in other states are not Vermont’s problem.

He also rebuffed speculation that hoards of homosexuals would move to Vermont to take advantage of the law because people are tied to their jobs and family and the law only holds in Vermont.

The only negative impact of the civil union law so far is that it steals the thunder from another important piece of legislation.

It turns out that Vermont has campaign-finance reform on the books and in practice. They’ve had it since 1997.17 V.S.A. 2801-2883 requires that any candidate who spends or receives $500 or more must file a form with the Secretary of State Office naming the treasurer responsible for maintaining the campaign account.

From then on all expenditures must be paid by check from a single account in a single bank.

They must record all contributions, expenditures, loans and debts including information on whether the source was from Vermont or outside the state.

These records are open to anyone who wants to read them.There are spending limits for the two-year election cycle as well. The spending limits for gubernatorial candidates is $300,000, $100,000 for Lt. Governor, $45,000 for other statewide offices, $4,000 for state senators and $2,000 for state representatives.

Incumbent governors can only spend 85 percent of the limit, and other statewide incumbents can only spend 90 percent.The law also urges candidates for federal positions to stick to the $300,000 limit, but federal law preempts state law. There’s nothing wrong with wishful thinking though.

Candidates for statewide office must get 75 percent of their funding from Vermont sources and cannot receive more than $400 from a single source outside their immediate family, excluding political parties.

All contributions over $50 must be made by check, and only direct contributions are allowed. Legislators may not take money from lobbyists during a legislative session either.

Penalties for messing with the campaign finance reports are fines up to $1,000 and six months in the slammer. Violation of any rules make you subject to civil suits of up to $10,000 per violation and additional action by the state attorney.

If you want to read the gory details, you can find them at (www.sec.state.vt.us/CampaignFinance/99guide.htm).

Dean pushed for the bill and signed it, even though he is personally penalized $45,000 for being the incumbent.

This says a lot for Dean, as well as all the other Vermont legislators, as everyone in Vermont is up for election every two years.

Campaign-finance reform is not just a dream, but a comprehensive version is already in practice. The most compelling argument against campaign reform is that limiting contributions to politicians infringes upon First Amendment rights to free speech.

Dean is concerned that it will be overruled in the courts, but urges that we wait and see how it is interpreted.

To illustrate the hole in this argument, I devised a fun game for you to play.

First read the perfectly legal examples of free speech below: I was certain the Pacers would win in seven, not the Lakers in six.

Your basketball prognosticating powers are far superior to mine, Dave.

Gee Tim, I wish that bastard Jim were dead.

Golly Judge Smith, I’d say Circuit Court Judges are the true heroes of democracy.

Nary a soul in central Iowa cooks crack quite like you Bob.

Egad Jane, you are the most adept practitioner of the horizontal tango I have ever met.

Now pretend that these statements were accompanied by a big, fat, roll of Benjamins.

Using a pen and paper go back and fill in the names of these crimes.

Answers: 1) gambling, 2) conspiracy, 3) bribery, 4) assorted drug transgressions, 5) prostitution.

As they say, money changes everything. As we enter the 21st century, we would do well to look again to the Vermont Legislature for guidance.

The ideas set forth in 1777 seemed crazy at the time, but we wouldn’t have it any other way today. I think history is in danger of repeating itself.

---

Erik Hoversten is a senior in math from Eagan Minn.