DOVER-With the election season coming down to the home stretch, Vermonters are seeing an big increase in political advertising — not all of it from the candidates, and not all of it true.
National organizations and big money have returned to Vermont politics, and one legislator is mounting a challenge.
On Sept. 10, Rep. Laura Sibilia (I-Windham-Bennington) sent a letter to Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark asking for her office’s review, under Vermont’s campaign-finance and lobbying laws, of campaign communications from a group called Americans for Prosperity (AFP).
AFP is a conservative political advocacy group focused on limited government, lower taxes, and free-market policies. Founded by the Charles Koch and the late David Koch, it seeks to stop government regulation and champion free enterprise.
Three AFP employees are registered as lobbyists in Vermont, as is AFP as their employer.
AFP is organized as a tax-exempt nonprofit political advocacy group under section 501(c)(4) of IRS regulations. Its mission, according to its public nonprofit IRS filings, is to “mobilize Americans to advocate for solutions that expand freedom and opportunity to unleash prosperity for all.”
Unlike charitable nonprofits, which are regulated under 501(c)(3) and are prohibited from supporting or opposing political candidates, nonprofit political advocacy groups can lobby and otherwise influence elections. They likewise pay no taxes, but donors cannot deduct contributions.
“They can run issue advertising,” Sibilia told The Commons.
Meanwhile, a separate but affiliated organization, AFP Action, launched in 2018, is a super PAC, which not only allows it to spend more than $1,000 to elect federal candidates but also permits it to accept unlimited contributions. These expenses can’t directly go to campaigns, and the super PAC can’t coordinate with federal political campaigns.
AFC Action is a “hybrid PAC,” a Federal Elections Commission structure that allows it to maintain a flow of money toward independent expenditures like advertising and other communications in support of or opposition to a specific candidate, as well as a separate account for contributions under ordinary PAC limits (in most cases, $5,000 for this election cycle).
Once a PAC spends money in a state election, state campaign laws also apply. There is no limit on campaign spending, but the Vermont places limits on contributions to local, legislative, county, and statewide candidates, to PACs, and to political parties.
Under newly beefed-up state campaign finance laws, a federal or out-of-state PAC that has received contributions exceeding Vermont’s $5,180 PAC contribution limit cannot make Vermont campaign expenditures unless it segregates Vermont-compliant contributions for use in the state.
An undisclosed donor could, under some circumstances, make a large donation to AFP, which it wouldn’t have to disclose legally.
In turn, AFP could legally donate that money to AFP Action, and campaign disclosure laws would reveal the nonprofit, not the original donor, as the source of the money.
In this context, neither AFP nor AFP Action “have to disclose who their donors are, and both of them are able to weigh in on campaigns, questions, and candidates,” Sibilia said.
She said that recent electoral history shows that much of AFP’s funding appears to be coming from big tech and big oil.
“But we don’t know exactly where these dollars are coming from,” she said.
‘A public interest in understanding’
“So we have out-of-state entities spending money in-state, leveraging some legitimate unrest in the state to put out pretty vague, non-specific advertisements intended to benefit the types of candidates that will help these large sectors,” Sibilia said. “We think that there’s a public interest in understanding when they are buying ads to influence the public.”
Vermont laws now require certain disclosures.
“The laws don’t say [AFP] can’t do what they’re doing, because they can,” Sibilia said. “It just says we need to know that they’re spending money to misinform the public. They just need to follow the law and disclose that they are spending money to influence the elections.”
In the 2024 election, AFP misinformation about Vermont’s Clean Heat Standard was adopted by Republican Gov. Phil Scott. State Democrats pointed to the AFP messaging and advertising as the catalyst for the party’s losing the legislative supermajority.
With the Democratic supermajority gone, they could no longer override his vetoes.
“I think the governor leveraged this misinformation in the last election cycle,” Sibilia said. “And I think the majority party in the Legislature was quite silent about it in terms of providing good information, or factual information, to counter some of the myths and inaccurate information that was being put out there. I think that impacted the election.”
She also criticized Democrats for not pushing back effectively and “answering legitimate concerns.”
In 2024, Jim Dandeneau, then-executive director of the Vermont Democratic Party, filed a similar complaint under the same law in response to concerns similar to Sibilia’s.
In a statement quoted in a report by New Hampshire Public Radio, Dandeneau called the behavior “part and parcel of the practices that the multi-million dollar AFP and its affiliates in the billionaire-funded Koch Brothers’ network have undertaken throughout the nation wherever elected officials attempt to stand up to the fossil fuel corporations and take action to slow the devastating and costly global overheating that the fossil fuel industries products and activities cause in places like Vermont.”
In 2025, the Office of the Attorney General settled a lobbying complaint against Americans for Prosperity for $3,000 and AFP’s promise to “identify itself by the name registered with the Vermont Secretary of State.”
New ads drop this year
“Now, I guess I would say the same thing is happening,” Sibilia said, citing three advertisements AFP is disseminating in Vermont.
One attacks “The Vermont Democrat Majority’s Energy Policies,” claiming they “Cost You More.” According to the ad, Vermonters suffer with higher energy bills, higher heating costs, less energy reliability, and more mandates because of the Democrats.
According to Renewable Energy Vermont, Vermont has the lowest energy costs in New England (though the region as a whole has higher costs than other parts of the country). If the power rates do go up in the coming weeks, it will be because of a tariff war that President Trump is waging on Canada, where much of Vermont’s electric power comes from.
As for rising heating oil and diesel fuel and gasoline prices, their sharp rise is in large part due to the war with Iran and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Another advertisement blames “The Democratic Majority” for “extreme land use laws that make it harder to build, farm and enjoy YOUR property.”
A third claims that “Taxpayers are paying more with no return on their investment” and asks voters to “Tell Your Legislators To: Lower Taxes, Remove Business Burdens, and No Property Tax Hikes.”
Sibilia explained that “In the past, if you were buying advertisement on a question, asking people to lobby legislators or take an action, you only had to declare that if it was during the legislative session.”
During the 2024 campaign, AFP sent “these giant postcards with inaccurate, incomplete information and accusations during the campaign season or coming into the session.”
In the 2025–26 session, the Legislature updated the election laws.
“We came in and said, ‘No, actually, you need to declare that,’” Sibilia said. “You get to say it. You get to send out your big postcards with your inaccurate information or incomplete information. That’s your First Amendment right. But you have to let folks know that you’re spending money to misinform the public, because that’s what our campaign finance and lobbying laws say.”
In her letter to Clark, Sibilia states that “Under 17 V.S.A.§2901, an expenditure includes money or anything of value spent to influence an election, advocate a position on a public question, or support or oppose candidates. Under 17 V.S.A.§2970, covered organizations spending at least $500 for those purposes must report their expenditures.”
She questioned whether AFP met these criteria.
“Vermont’s lobbying laws also cover communications intended to influence legislative action and solicit others to influence legislative action,” Sibilia wrote. “Under 2 V.S.A.§264c, certain lobbying advertisements and advertising campaigns costing at least $1,000 are subject to identification and reporting requirements.
“Before filing this complaint, I sent the advertisements to the Secretary of State’s Elections Division and asked whether they constitute reportable campaign expenditures and whether the ‘Tell your legislators’ advertisement constitutes lobbying.”
She continued, “Elections Administrator Gordon Merrick responded that the communications ‘certainly appear’ intended to influence an election. Elections Administrator Dan Brown responded that one could reasonably argue that the ‘Tell your legislators’ language is a solicitation to influence legislative action. Both directed me to the Attorney General’s complaint process if I wished to file a complaint.”
Sibilia sponsored some of the language that was enacted in both of these laws.
“In 2025, Act 70 expanded campaign-finance reporting to include covered spending intended to influence an election and reduced the reporting threshold to $500,” she wrote. “In 2026, Act 154 expanded the identification and reporting requirements for certain advertisements soliciting Vermonters to influence legislative action.”
Sibilia is asking:
• Whether AFP was required to register or file reports concerning these ads.
• Whether AFP properly reported the costs of producing, placing, targeting, and distributing them.
•Whether the candidate-focused advertisements constitute reportable election-related expenditures.
• Whether the “Tell your legislators” advertisement is subject to Vermont’s lobbying disclosure requirements, and whether AFP complied with any applicable requirements.
“I am asking for a review of the facts, a determination of which requirements apply, and a determination of whether AFP complied with them,” she wrote.
Sibilia emphasized in her letter that she was not questioning AFP’s right to disseminate political information.
“I’ve cited the laws,” Sibilia wrote. “One is around campaign finance, and one is around lobbying, and I would like an opinion on whether or not they’ve violated both.”
Campaign finance transgressions might call for a fine, but it does not limit AFP’s right to free speech, she said.
“Now we have big oil and big tech seeing the legitimate unrest in Vermont and jumping in to fuel that with some of the ads,” Sibilia said. “These large businesses are not looking to be regulated, and so I think they would like to definitely make sure that they are helping politicians that are promising to reduce regulation.
“That is their right. They get to do that. This is America. They have free speech,” she continued. “We just need them to disclose what they’re doing, because that is the law.”
The public must also educate itself, Sibilia said.
“At the end of the day, it’s incumbent upon Vermonters themselves to ask more questions, to demand evidence, to require proof, to make sure they understand what is being said, and also to understand that in many cases, the attempt is there to be manipulative,” she said.
“Right now we have laws, but we also need regular citizens to demand more from those who are reaching out and trying to influence them,” Sibilia said.
“And that is of every political stripe, every type of industry,” she added. “You need to ask for evidence. You need to ask for proof. You need to make people show you. You should not buy into these sound bites.”
Additional reporting by Jeff Potter.
This News item by Joyce Marcel was written for The Commons.