Declaration of William H.

Sorrell
I, William H. Sorrell, under penalties of perjury, declare the following
to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief:
1.

I am and have been the Attorney General for the State of Vermont
since 1997. My personal integrity, the integrity of the Office I hold
and zealous adherence to my oath of office have been and remain of
the utmost priority for me.

2.

I have not violated the law in the performance of my duties as

Attorney General nor besmirched the ethical obligations attendant
with being the states chief law enforcement officer.

3.

In this Declaration, I speak only for myself and my campaigns. To

the extent Mr. Toensing makes claims against other individuals or
organizations, I cannot and do not speak for them.

4.

In the interest of avoiding repetition in responding to the individual

counts, I ask that my responses to individual counts be considered
regarding other counts, if relevant.
COUNT ONE

5.

Former Governor Howard Dean was a strong supporter of my

candidacy in 2012. He publically endorsed my candidacy at a press
event, attended and made remarks at two or three fundraisers and
joined me on one occasion for the recording of one or more radio
spots. Early in the campaign Governor Dean made one suggestion
consisting of about one sentence and one sentence only regarding
my campaign strategy, which I followed. I neither requested nor
received other strategic advice from Governor Dean. He was never
made an agent of the campaign for any purpose, nor was he asked or
empowered to represent the campaign in interactions with any
individual or organization, including the Democratic Attorneys
General Association (DAGA) or the Committee for Justice and
Fairness (CJF).

6.

During the 2012 campaign, I reported campaign expenditures to the

Vermont Democratic Party (VDP) totaling $13,000, as detailed in
1

my filings of October 15 and November 13, 2012. These filings are

attached as exhibits to this Declaration.
7.

Neither on July 25, 2012 nor on any other date did my office issue
guidance to (clear) the way for theCJF expenditures made on
(my) behalf during the primary.

8.

I note as background and to clarify that, until the August, 2012 date
on which the first CJF television ad involving Howard Dean
espousing my candidacy was broadcast in Vermont, I had absolutely
no idea that DAGA or CJF had any plans or had taken any action to
support my candidacy. I had no idea Howard Dean had even talked
with anyone affiliated with DAGA or a DAGA-funded PAC. The
television ads and other advertising expenditures espousing my
candidacy were created and distributed without my knowledge. I
first learned of the television ads existence when I received a media
call asking for my reaction to its airing. I was not aware of the
existence of the Committee for Justice and Fairness (CJF), let alone
whether it was or is an independent-expenditures-only PAC.

9.

My Offices guidance and related press release expressing an

intention not to enforce contribution limits spelled out in Vermonts
campaign finance laws for independent-expenditure-only PACs
were prompted solely by a July 18, 2012 notice to the state of the
existence of Priorities PAC, an independent-expenditures-only
PAC. We changed our guidance and decided not to enforce the
contribution limits for independent-expenditures-only PACs in order
to avoid potentially costly and, for the State, unsuccessful litigation,
in light of various federal court decisions, including a decision by
Judge William Sessions in Vermont Right to Life Committee v.
Sorrell, 875 F.Supp.2d 376 (2012), which made clear that such
limits were unconstitutional. I attach our press release in this regard.

10. The television ad created by CJF was about the mortgage

foreclosure crisis. The radio ads, scripted by my campaign without
DAGA or CJF involvement, were about my work fighting Big
Tobacco and my efforts to reduce environmental pollution. A
transcript of all three ads is attached.

11. During the summer of 2012, I heard from a friend and former AG
about a Vermont resident Jim Jordan, who works on national
campaigns. Jordan supported my candidacy.
12. At a meeting in Bennington County, Jordan indicated he could
connect us with a firm that could help us with media placement.
Ultimately, he put my campaign in touch with a man named John
Hutchinson of Media Strategies. Discussions ensued as to our
budget for radio spots, etc., he advised us we would need wire the
payment to his firm and the ads would be aired. We followed his
wiring instructions and effected payment in mid-August.
13. Until the McMullen allegations/filing some months later, we had no
idea that DAGA and Media Strategies were apparently located in the
same building. Looking at Media Strategies website at present, it
appears that that company is no longer located at that address.
14. We have no information to establish DAGA and Media Strategies
are at all affiliated and we believe they are not affiliated.
15. Neither I nor my campaign requested that Howard Dean provide
advice to DAGA and/or CJF. Similarly, neither I nor my campaign
has any knowledge of any advice Governor Dean may have
provided those entities, if he did.

COUNT TWO
16. I am not familiar with detailed facts relating to DAGA and CJFs
actions and inactions in connection with their involvement in the
2012 Attorney Generals race in Vermont. I have no authority to
speak for them. Given their support of my candidacy, I could not
ethically be involved in looking into the allegations against them.
However, I am aware that, after the matter was referred to the
Addison County States Attorney, that office declined to bring any
charges.

COUNT THREE
17. To the best of my knowledge, my campaigns have met all
obligations to accurately report campaign expenditures. The amount,
date, to whom paid and the purpose of the expenditures have been
disclosed in public filings over my nine separate campaigns for
Attorney General.
18. To the extent that I used block expense claims to describe
expenditures of my campaign, I did not and do not believe that such
descriptors violate the law. I did and do believe the description
reimbursement or other such general description is sufficient for
purposes of the law. To my knowledge, this has been the custom
and practice of numerous candidates for office over the years that I
have been Attorney General.
COUNT FOUR
19. The September, 2014 press event with Dean Corren described in the
Complaint highlighted an issue that has long been a priority for me
and my Office, i.e. periodic gasoline price disparities between retail
prices in northwestern Vermont as compared to elsewhere in the
state. I participated in that event in my role as Attorney General. It
was not a campaign event.
20. During the 2013-2014 legislative session, I strongly and publically
supported a House bill, sponsored by Rep. Pearson, that would have
required gasoline distributors to provide more information on
pricing issues to my Office and would have required advance notice
to my Office of the planned sale of a gasoline wholesaler or retailer
to a competitor. I testified in favor of the bill in the House
Transportation Committee. Unfortunately, the bill did not advance.
21. During 2014, I again observed significant price disparities in the
State. As Attorney General, I questioned the reason for the high
prices, particularly in light of the fact that stations in northwestern
Vermont are closer to Canadian distribution points than stations in
surrounding counties. I also noted the fact that certain parties in the
gasoline business were litigating, allegedly for environmental
reasons, Costcos plans to sell retail gasoline. (Costcos sale of
4

gasoline would significantly increase competition in the area.) I

mentioned my continuing support for the bill and my hope that the
2015 session of the legislature would again take up the bill that had
failed to gain passage in the previous session.
22. At Governor Shumlins re-election kickoff event in Burlington in
early September, Rep. Pearson asked me if gasoline price disparities
were still of importance to me. I indicated very much so. He said he
was working on the Corren campaign and stated that Dean Corren
was looking to address the pricing issue at a press event, stating his
support for the proposed legislation. Rep. Pearson inquired whether
I might be willing to appear at the press event and state my support
not for Dean Corren, but for the proposed bill. I indicated I might be
willing to do so.
23. Rep. Pearson again communicated with me a week or so later and
there followed some communications about scheduling. I was sent a
draft press release that included statements critical of Senator Dick
Mazza. I responded I would not participate in any press event that
included criticism of the senator. The language was removed from a
subsequent draft. I also had the opportunity to review some visual
aids for the press event. These were, as I recall, graphs depicting
gas price increases and disparities between prices in different parts
of the state and at different times. I believe they were prepared by
Senator Sanders office.
24. I appeared at the press event on a sidewalk in front of a Burlington
gas station at the North Street and North Avenue intersection. There
were a handful of media present, one or more state legislators, Dean
Corren and perhaps two or three of his campaign staff and myself.
The graphs were on one or two easels and were referred to during
the press event. Except for the possibility of a Corren button or
sticker worn by Corren and/or his staff, I saw no campaign banners,
signs or literature. At no time during the press event or at any time
during the campaign was I asked to or did I endorse Correns
candidacy. Correns remarks and answers to media questions, as
well as my own, were, in my memory, limited to the gas pricing
issues and the proposed legislation.

25. This was not a campaign rally. Indeed, it was much like other issuefocused events I participated in during 2014 as part of my job as
Attorney General.
State emails and other resources were
appropriately used by my office in planning with coordinators of the
event because a crucial part of my duties as Attorney General is to
raise awareness about issues of concern to Vermonters and support
legislation that I believe will address those issues.
COUNT FIVE
26. As Attorney General, I have a longstanding policy of
accommodating the vast majority of meeting requests I receive. I
personally participate in many such meetings. Other times, I ask one
or more Assistant Attorneys General (AAGs) to meet with the
individual or organization seeking the meeting. The policy remains
the same whether one has or has not financially supported my
candidacy.
27. As Attorney General, I feel a responsibility to be accessible to
constituents and others making reasonable requests to meet. Often,
individuals request meetings to advocate action by my Office against
or relating to an individual, a company or an industry. Other times
the request comes on behalf of a potential target of some form of
enforcement action contemplated by my Office. I have typically
used these meetings to obtain information so that my Office might
make more informed future decisions on taking or declining to take
some official action.
28. I have never once in my career insisted on or even requested any
campaign support before I would meet or otherwise discuss issues
relevant to the position I hold.
29. The DAGA. To the best of my knowledge, DAGA operates like the
Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) and the
Democratic and Republican Governors Associations (DGA and
RGA). I believe DAGA was formed two or so years after the
creation of RAGA. In June, 2005, when I assumed the presidency of
the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) at a meeting
in Santa Monica, CA, in my speech to the AGs, I called for the
elimination of RAGA and DAGA. I suggested they are not
6

beneficial to the collegiality that is helpful in our joint efforts. I also

suggested it is unseemly that the organizations receive large sums
from entities potentially subject to our enforcement efforts.
30. During my year as NAAGs President, RAGA and DAGA continued
to exist. I was told that certain Washington, DC officials connected
to RAGA opined that my suggestion was simply a partisan attempt
to disarm the opposition because RAGA was, and remains, much
more successful at fundraising and spending money in AG
campaigns than DAGA.
31. I continue to regret the existence of RAGA and DAGA, but I do
attend certain of DAGAs events.
32. The Facebook Event. This event resulted from a Facebook
presentation to a bipartisan group of Attorneys General at a
Washington, DC NAAG meeting in late February or early March of
2014. Facebook indicated a willingness to come to individual states
and make a presentation on online safety for youth, particularly
relating to social media. One of the AGs present spoke favorably
about a Facebook presentation in his state. After my return to
Vermont, I spoke to my consumer protection staff about their
interest in a Facebook presentation in Vermont. They felt it a good
idea. We reached out to Facebook and approximately two months
later we sponsored a well-attended evening presentation at Essex
High School for students, parents, teachers and administrators. The
presentation was filmed by local access TV for broadcasting around
the state and is available on our office website.
33. The AT&T Event. Some months earlier, with Vermont highway
safety personnel, I arranged for and participated in a well-received
AT&T sponsored presentation at a Windsor County high school on
the dangers of texting while driving.
34. Meeting with AT&T Officials. I met with high level officials of
AT&T in Washington, DC. I was concerned about cramming, the
practice of unknown and unwanted charges on customers monthly
cell phone bills for services supposedly provided by third parties. I
had been crammed on my state cell phone account and my Office
had conducted surveys indicating that cramming was a widespread
7

practice in Vermont and was costing Vermonters many, many

thousands of dollars. I received unsatisfactory responses to my
questions from AT&T.
35. During the period 2013-2015, my office took the national lead in a
50 state effort to address cramming by the nations four major
wireless carriers. I reached out to federal regulators. Ultimately, the
FTC, FCC and CFPB all engaged on the issue. During this past ten
months, I have twice journeyed to Washington, DC to announce
major state and federal settlements with the carriers, including
AT&T, resulting in approximately $400M in restitution amounts for
consumers and approximately $100M in payments primarily to the
states with approximately $20M going to the federal treasury.
36. Meeting with Lawyers for Five Hour Energy. During 2014, I
took a meeting in Vermont relating to Five Hour Energy, at the
request of attorneys from a DC law firm. While not relevant to my
decision to take the meeting, I note this firm has contributed to my
campaigns. Within a few months of the meeting, Vermont, with two
other states, filed a consumer-protection lawsuit against Five Hour
Energy. Some other states have subsequently filed similar litigation.
The cases are pending.
37. There are numerous other instances that I can provide in which
contributors to my campaigns have requested that my Office do
something or refrain from doing something, and I have taken actions
contrary to those requests.
38. Meeting with Representatives of Comcast. Comcast gave a
presentation at a DAGA meeting, touting the advantages of a
contemplated merger with Time Warner. Vermont was among the
states concerned about a reduction in competition if the merger went
forward. We engaged with the Department of Justice on the issue
and ultimately Comcast scrapped its plans for the merger.
39. The Patent Troll Suits. Vermont became the first state to file a
state enforcement action against an alleged patent troll when we
sued MPHJ Technologies in the spring of 2013. My Offices
concern about patent trolls resulted not from requests or suggestions
by national corporations or their counsel, but rather from my
8

requested attendance at a meeting in Vermont in the spring of 2012

with representatives of several well-known Vermont companies,
including My Web Grocer. They talked about their victimization by
patent trolls and asked me and the Secretary of Commerce to try to
help address the issue.
40. With strong support from my office, a first of its kind in the nation
statute prohibiting bad faith assertions of patent infringement was
enacted by the legislature in 2013. I have spoken at NAAG
meetings and to various groups about Vermonts efforts in this
arena. Other states and the FTC have subsequently engaged with
MPHJ and approximately 20 states now have statutes akin to our
Vermont law. I have testified before at least one Congressional
committee urging that state statutes, like Vermonts, not be
preempted by federal law. Our litigation against MPHJ continues in
state and federal court. Vermonts anti-patent troll efforts have
pleased any number of national corporations, including clients of the
Dickstein Shapiro law firm.
41. My Travel. I am frequently asked to speak in different locations in
Vermont and around the country on GMO labeling, patent trolls,
campaign finance reform, consumer privacy and other issues. When
asked to travel out of state, other than for certain NAAG functions or
Congressional testimony, I typically only agree to do so if Vermont
taxpayers will not need to pay my travel expenses. Consequently, in
the past year, I have had travel expenses covered by the likes of Yale
Law School, the American Conference Institute and the National
Attorneys General Training & Research Institute (NAGTRI).
42. In February of 2014, I responded to an email by an attorney, who
offered me use of her ski house. I stated, Colorado skiing would be
fun! In truth, I would like to ski some day in Colorado. It would
be fun to do so. But I have yet to ski in Colorado.
43. The MTBE Suit. I have never accepted $10,000 in campaign
contributions (or any amount) in return for filing a lawsuit and
retaining as counsel those making the contributions.
44. At a dinner at a DAGA or AGs meeting in late 2013, I was joined at
a table by Michael Messina and some Texas lawyers with whom he
9

indicated he is affiliated. Mike Messina is married to former New

Mexico AG Patricia Madrid, known as Patsy. I do not specifically
recall Patsy being at the dinner table, but it is certainly possible she
was present.
45. Many years ago I was part of an AGs delegation to Israel with thenGeneral Madrid. Mike was among the spouses making the trip.
Mike and Patsy became and remain friends. They supported me
financially in my 2012 campaign. Over the years they have invited
me to visit them in New Mexico. I have yet to do so.
46. Just before sitting down to dinner, Mike gave me an envelope saying
that he and the attorneys from the Texas firm Barron & Budd (B&B)
wished to contribute to my campaign for re-election. I thanked them
and accepted the envelope. During the dinner, Mike and the B&B
attorneys mentioned they are involved in national MTBE (a gasoline
additive no longer in use) litigation and they suggested they would
come to Vermont at a future date to discuss the possibility of
Vermont suing the oil and gas industry, if I was interested. I
indicated I was aware of the MTBE issue and would talk to some
folks in Vermont and get back to them if a meeting made sense.
They gave me some printed material about their firm and a memo
they had prepared about the pending litigation which included, I
believe, some attention to the specifics of relevant Vermont law. I
took the folder or manila envelope but did not then or ever read its
contents.
47. Later that evening or the next morning I opened the contribution
envelope and found $2000 checks to my campaign. Each of these
contributions was duly reported on my next campaign finance filing.
48. During my time as AG, there have been a number of occasions when
former AGs and/or other counselsome campaign contributors,
some nothave approached me about Vermont potentially retaining
them for litigation relating to issues like opioid marketing practices
by pharmaceutical companies, flame retardants in furniture and
clothing, etc. My standard practice has been to ask them for a memo
on the facts they have uncovered and their applicability to Vermont
law. If they supply such information, I turn it over to AAGs
10

working in the relevant substantive area for review, response and

recommendation.
49. As stated, I was aware of MTBE litigation. My Office had been
following the issue for a number of years. Matt Pawa, a Boston
attorney we had worked with on other issues in the past, was
representing one or more plaintiffs in MTBE litigation for alleged
groundwater contamination.
Attorney Pawa inquired of my
Environmental Protection Division (EP) whether we would be
interested in considering a lawsuit. Scot Kline is Chief of EP in my
office. He reached out to the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR)
during the Douglas Administration inquiring as to their interest in
the issue. ANR support would be important since much of the
records reviews and necessary pre-trial preparation for a lawsuit
would fall to ANR personnel. When asked, ANR was not interested
in the litigation.
50. Subsequently, the PAWA firm obtained a judgment for $100s of
millions against one of the major oil companies on behalf of the
state of New Hampshire. Other MTBE cases had been consolidated
in a multi-district litigation lawsuit (MDL) in federal court in New
York and the trial judge had made some decisions favorable to
plaintiffs.
51. After returning to Vermont from the meeting at which the dinner
occurred, I gave the B&B materials to Scot Kline for his review. He
told me about the MDL and the New Hampshire case judgment. I
asked him to check with the current ANR hierarchy to determine
whether theyd like to discuss the possibility of suit. He did so and
the state officials were most interested in talking with us. In late
February, 2014, I met with Department of Environmental
Conservation Commissioner David Mears, one or more of his staff,
Scot Kline and one or two other EP AAGs at our offices. I made
very clear that this was simply to discuss the possibility of litigation
and to gauge their interest. I also made clear that if ANR/DEC was
not fully supportive, we would not take any MTBE-related actions
on behalf of the state. We discussed, among other issues, that we had
potential statute of limitations concerns as of approximately late
June, thus, we would need to move rather expeditiously if we
wanted to pursue the possibility of suit. It was also made clear that
11

DEC personnel would need to be active participants in the next few

months if we were going to engage in records reviews, etc.
52. Commissioner Mears and his staff were most enthusiastic about
pursuing a lawsuit. We indicated that in the event of suit, our Office
would intend to be lead counsel, but we would certainly need
outside counsel assistance if we were going to sue. I believe the
B&B offer to come to Vermont to discuss litigation and perhaps
review some records was mentioned in the meeting. There was
certainly discussion that a decision on outside counsel would need to
be a priority.
53. It was only at this point that my staff communicated with B&B and
agreed to a Vermont meeting. B&B attorneys and Mike Messina
journeyed to Vermont for a meeting I did not attend. Matt Pawa
(never, to my knowledge, a contributor to any of my campaigns) was
invited to come to Vermont to discuss the possibility of a Vermont
MTBE lawsuit. I sat in a portion of that meeting. At no time did I
speak to Scot Kline or anyone else about what firm or firms we
should retain to assist our office in an MTBE case. At no time
during this decision-making process, did I inform my staff of what
firms or entities had contributed to my campaign. I was unaware
that a NY law firm was co-counseling with B&B in the MDL case.
Ultimately, after interviews by Scot and others from EP and DEC
staff, Scot informed me that their joint recommendation was for us
to retain B&B, the NY firm, Mike Messina and the PAWA firm. I
indicated I was fine with that and we should move ahead.
54. We thereafter engaged in discussions/negotiations primarily with
B&B for a contingency fee arrangement binding the four firms. We
pushed back on the initial suggested retention agreements and
ultimately agreed on terms significantly more favorable to Vermont
in the event of a recovery, than those initially suggested. The firms
will cover the vast majority of pre-trial expenses and will not receive
any reimbursement of expenses or a percentage of recovery unless
there is a judgment or settlement in favor of the state.
55. There was absolutely no violation of state or federal law on my part
in conjunction with the MTBE lawsuit or retention of outside
counsel.
12

COUNT SIX
56. I was successfully represented by Richard Cassidy when I was sued
by Jack McMullen in connection with the DAGA/CJF allegations
back in late 2012.
57. Richard Cassidy and his wife are close personal friends of mine and
my siblings. They have frequently attended gatherings at my home.
I have dined and socialized at their residence.
58. The complaint alleges that the states settlement of a matter
involving two clients represented by Attorney Cassidy two days
after a decision by the Chittenden Superior Court in my favor in the
McMullen case constituted an indisputable conflict of interest.
59. As of January 30, 2013, the date of the settlement, I was unaware
that Richard Cassidy was representing any client in a matter in
conflict with my Office. Richard Cassidy never, during our
discussions prior to that date, mentioned he represented a party in a
dispute with the Office, let alone the substance of any settlement
discussions.
60. I have approximately 80 AAGs in my Office. I have active
involvement in discussions and certain decisions relating to major
civil and criminal cases, but there are numerous lawsuits and
disputes involving my Office of which I am unaware and/or play no
part in case decisions.
61. I was never, prior to the settlement, aware of the case or the
substance of any settlement discussions at issue, even without
knowing of Attorney Cassidys involvement. I do not believe I took
any action contrary to the best interests of the State of Vermont in
the case in question.

13

Transcripts of Ads

Transcripts of Ads

1. Democratic Attorneys General Association TV Spot

Governor Dean (30 seconds)
They sold dishonest mortgages and illegally foreclosed on peoples homes.
But when the big banks tried to get away with it, one man in Vermont held them
accountable.
Attorney General Bill Sorrell cracked down on deceptive bankers and won
millions in relief for homeowners.
Hes fought to stop predatory lenders and protected seniors from scams.
Im proud to call Bill Sorrell my friend, but more proud to call him Vermonts
Attorney General.
2. Re-Elect Attorney General Bill Sorrell Radio Spots

Radio Script #1 for Gov. Dean Radio Spot 60 second spot

Governor Dean (45 seconds)

This is Governor Howard Dean. Im supporting Attorney General Bill Sorrell in
the democratic primary on August 28.
Like me, Bill Sorrell is willing to take on the tough fights without regard to
political consequence.
Bill Sorrell successfully fought Big Tobacco and secured Vermont over $300
million dollars.
Bill Sorrell successfully fought the auto industry to make Vermont a national
leader in the effort to reverse global climate change.
And Bill Sorrell successfully fought the Bush Administration over the EPAs
environmental regulations.
For fifteen years Attorney General Bill Sorrell has been fighting to make Vermont
cleaner safer and healthier. Now it is time for us to fight for him.
Join me and vote to re-elect Attorney General Bill Sorrell in the democratic
primary on August 28th

AG Sorrell (12 seconds):

This is Attorney General Bill Sorrell. I am honored to have the support of Howard
Dean and I would be honored to have your vote in the democratic primary on
August 28.
Please visit BillSorrell.com learn more about my campaign.
Public Announcer (03 seconds):
Paid for by the Sorrell Campaign Committee, P.O. Box 809 Montpelier, Vermont.

Radio Script #2 for Gov. Dean Radio Spot 30 second spot

Governor Dean (26):

This is Governor Howard Dean.
For fifteen years Attorney General Bill Sorrell has fought to make Vermont
cleaner, safer and healthier
Bill Sorrell has fought to secure hundreds of millions of dollars for Vermont
taxpayers;
And Bill Sorrell has fought to make Vermont a national leader in the effort to
reverse global climate change.
For fifteen years Bill has fought for us, now its time we fight for him.
Join me and vote to re-elect Attorney General Bill Sorrell in the democratic
primary on August 28th.
AG Sorrell (03 seconds):
Paid for by the Sorrell Campaign Committee, P.O. Box 809 Montpelier, Vermont

Sorrell Campaign Finance Disclosure Form

October 15, 2012

Sorrell Campaign Finance Disclosure Form

November 13, 2012

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S GUIDANCE

REGARDING INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURE COMMITTEES

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S GUIDANCE

REGARDING INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE COMMITTEES
Under Vermont's campaign finance laws, a "political committee" or "PAC" is any entity
or group of individuals that receives and spends more than $500 in a calendar year for the
purpose of supporting or opposing a candidate in a Vermont election. Vermont's statutes do not
distinguish between a PAC that makes contributions to or coordinates with a candidate and one
that conducts its activities entirely independent of any candidates. Thus, Vermont's
requirements regarding registration, reporting and contribution limits for PACs apply equally to
all entities or groups that attain PAC status. In other words, all Vermont P ACs must complete
the registration process, file appropriate disclosure reports with the Secretary of State's Office,
and comply with statutory contribution limits.
Since the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,
130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), a number of federal appellate courts have held that limiting contributions
to P ACs that make only independent expenditures is not constitutionally permissible. Consistent
with these decisions, Judge Sessions of the federal district court of Vermont expressed a similar
view in his recent opinion issued in Vermont Right to L~re Committee v. Sorrell, Docket No.
2: 10-cv-188, on pages 59-63 and 78. VRLC has appealed Judge Sessions's decision to the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
While the VRLC case is pending on appeal and until further guidance is received from the
Second Circuit or Vermont courts, the Attorney General's Office will follow Judge Sessions's
opinion regarding contribution limits for independent expenditure PACs. Accordingly, the
Office will not enforce the $2000 contribution limit for those PACs that demonstrate they make
only independent expenditures. Of course, such groups must continue to comply with Vermont's
registration and reporting requirements. Further, to be clear, if investigation reveals, as Judge
Sessions found in the VRLC case, that a PAC's political activities are not conducted entirely
independently of candidates, the PAC will continue to be subject to Vermont's contribution
limits.

Dated: July 25,2012