Updating Definitions of Lobbying Advertisements (H.686) - Overview & Analysis

H.686, seeks to expand and modernize the scope of disclosure and identification requirements for lobbying-related advertisements in Vermont by broadening the definitions of "advertisement" and "lobbying," removing session-based timing limitations on disclosure, and updating statutory language to be technology-neutral, affecting lobbying regulation, campaign transparency, and public communications policy.

The Details:

• Broadens the definition of "advertisement" under Vermont's lobbying disclosure statute (2 V.S.A. § 264c) so that the list of covered media — radio, television, newspapers, other periodicals, and internet websites — is now illustrative rather than exhaustive (using "including" rather than a closed list). This means new communication formats can be captured without requiring further statutory updates.

• Creates a second category of covered communication for messages that are "widely disseminated to the public," explicitly including mass mailings, robotic phone calls (robocalls), and paid internet communications. This list is also illustrative, allowing regulators to capture future dissemination methods.

• Adds a definition of "advertising campaign" to mean advertisements that are substantially similar in nature, regardless of the media in which they are placed, enabling regulators to treat coordinated, multi-platform messaging efforts as a single campaign for disclosure purposes.

• Retains existing disclosure requirements that lobbying advertisements intended to influence legislative action must identify the lobbyist, lobbying firm, or lobbyist employer who paid for the ad, along with language stating the ad was paid for (in whole or in part) by that entity.

• Preserves existing definitions of lobbying activities, including oral and written communications with legislators or administrative officials, solicitation of others, goodwill-building activities, and employer-sponsored events aimed at facilitating constituent-legislator contact. Notably, the House-passed version did not adopt the Draft 1.1 proposal to remove "orally or in writing" and replace it with the broader term "to communicate." The original, more specific phrasing remains in the statute.

• Retains the session-based timing limitation on disclosure. Despite extensive committee testimony advocating for year-round disclosure requirements — and despite this being characterized as the bill's central purpose during sponsor testimony — the House-passed version still limits the identification requirement to advertisements made "prior to final adjournment of a biennial or adjourned legislative session." The off-session disclosure gap discussed at length in hearings remains unaddressed in the enacted text.

• Sets an effective date of July 1, 2026.

Analysis:

H.686 as passed by the House achieves a meaningful but narrower set of reforms than what was discussed and advocated for during committee proceedings. The bill successfully modernizes the definition of "advertisement" to capture mass mailings, robocalls, paid internet communications, and future media formats — a genuine improvement that reflects how advocacy messaging reaches Vermonters today. The addition of an "advertising campaign" definition is also a constructive step toward ensuring coordinated, multi-platform efforts are treated transparently. These are real gains for disclosure and accountability.

However, the House-passed version is notably more limited than the vision articulated by the bill's sponsor and key witnesses. The central reform described in committee — extending lobbying ad disclosure requirements year-round to close the off-session loophole — is not reflected in the final text. The session-based timing limitation remains, meaning that organizations can still fund substantial advertising campaigns during election season and other off-session periods without disclosing their involvement. Similarly, the technology-neutral language change to the definition of "lobbying" (replacing "orally or in writing" with "to communicate") was proposed in Draft 1.1 but was not carried into the House-passed bill. These omissions represent a significant gap between the bill's stated intent, as described in testimony, and its actual operative effect.

The concerns raised by VPIRG about insufficiently detailed reporting requirements and by the Attorney General's office about misaligned enforcement powers also remain unaddressed. While the bill does not limit speech or prohibit advertising — it simply requires identification and reporting — its practical impact will depend on how terms like "widely disseminated" and "paid internet communications" are interpreted, and whether the Secretary of State's office receives adequate guidance and resources for implementation. Reasonable people may disagree about whether the bill strikes the right balance between transparency and administrative burden, particularly for smaller advocacy organizations.

In sum, H.686 takes a positive step toward modernizing Vermont's lobbying disclosure framework, but it falls short of the comprehensive reform that committee testimony suggested was both needed and achievable. As the bill moves to the Senate, key questions remain: will the off-session disclosure gap be addressed, will the definition of lobbying be updated to be technology-neutral, and will reporting and enforcement tools be strengthened to give the expanded definitions practical effect?

Current Status:

Last updated: 3/21/2026

DISCLAIMER: Generative AI used to assist in the production of this report.