Secretary of State Sarah Copeland Hanzas gave it the old college try. This year, after every campaign finance reporting deadline, she published lists of all candidates who failed to file as required by law. This was aimed at encouraging compliance, if only by the embarrassment of being publicly identified as a scofflaw.

It was a good idea, but it didn’t work. The proof? The most recent list of non-compliers, released after the December 15 deadline for Final Reports, was by far the longest of all the lists. Proof that avoidance of embarrassment meant nothing whatsoever to candidates for public office.

The list is actually three lists: Those who filed, those who filed an “Under Threshold” report (didn’t raise or spend $500 or more), and those who just let the deadline fly by. And yes, if your campaign had no reportable activity, you’re still required to officially attest to that fact.

Among statewide candidates, only two are in the failed-to-file category: Republican candidate for treasurer (and Republican National Commitee member) Joshua Bechhoefer and, um, incumbent Auditor Doug Hoffer. Oopsie.

It gets really embarrassing when you get to legislative candidates. The list of Senate scofflaws is almost as long as the list of those who complied. A total of 30 Senate candidates, including seven winners, did not file a Final Report. In the House, 105 candidates failed to file, including (by my count) 32 winners.

My diagnosis of this failure is twofold. First, our sadly diminished media all but ignored Copeland Hanzas’ reports. Second, our campaign finance laws are so toothless, secretive and underenforced that candidates must feel no pressure at all to obey them.

And who writes these laws? Why, our elected lawmakers, the very people who have to abide by them. I mean, Copeland Hanzas may be making efforts to improve compliance now, but she had a hand in writing these laws (or never considering tougher measures) when she was chair of the House Government Operations Committee, the policy panel responsible for campaign finance law. When she was a lawmaker, she acted in the interests of her fellow lawmakers, not the public.

Back to the media. If I recall correctly, VTDigger published a story about Copeland Hanzas’ first scofflaw list, but nothing since. And no other media outlet, to my knowledge, has covered her lists at all. So much for the specter of public embarrassment.

Our media outlets are, of course, horrendously under-resourced — a fact confirmed by VTDigger itself in a piece about the Associated Press’ retreat from Vermont. Its last full-time reporter, Lisa Rathke, is taking a buyout and will not be replaced. Once upon a time, the AP used to be the unexciting but indispensable backbone of journalism in Vermont, cranking out plenty of content and covering the basics. Now it’s virtually nonexistent. And, as VTDigger notes, Vermont as a whole “has 75% fewer working journalists today than it did two decades ago.”

The political press has suffered especially. There are no political columnists or dedicated political reporters anymore. Campaign finance, which used to be a staple of political coverage in multiple outlets, largely goes uncovered. And when there is a story, it often does little more than scratch the surface.

As for the law itself, its inadequacy was laid bare in a recent Brattleboro Reformer article about a campaign finance complaint filed by outgoing Democratic Rep. Sara Coffey against three Windham County Republicans. I’ve cited this article previously, but it needs to be mentioned again in this context.

We only know about this complaint because Coffey chose to reveal it. Otherwise the process is a black box, exempt from public disclosure. The Attorney General’s Office, which investigates such matters, told The Reformer that it receives about 20 campaign finance complaints a year. And that’s all they will say. That’s all they’re legally allowed to say.

The outcomes of AGO probes are reported to the State Ethics Commission, which is — surprise, surprise — yet another black box. The prying eyes of the taxpayers are not welcome.

The only way a complaint would ever be made public is if the AGO chooses to take it to court. But, and I hope you’re sitting down for this, they almost never do that. They first reach out to the subject of the complaint seeking an explanation or perhaps an amended filing. Prosecution is a last resort, either rare or nonexistent.

How friendly, How cozy. How utterly useless.

Our campaign finance system is supposed to reveal fundraising and spending to the public in a timely manner. That’s why there are multiple reporting periods in the runup to elections, and why campaigns are required to immediately report any mass media purchases of $500 or more when made within 45 days of an election. The idea is to discourage dirty tactics through the disinfectant of sunlight.

But if candidates are routinely ignoring the law, then timely disclosure simply won’t happen. Politicians can get away with funny business with relative impunity.

The inescapable conclusion is that our campaign finance system is useless, and it was absolutely designed to be useless. Scofflaws can openly scoff with little chance they’ll face any consequences.

We have been relatively fortunate so far because most of our politicians are well-intentioned. And the amount of political money in Vermont is relatively small. But that, in itself, exposes us to tremendous risk. What if an outside group or, say, a rabidly political tech bro like Elon Musk, decided to bring their financial might to bear on our politics? It’d cost them little more than pocket change. And we’d be unlikely to find out until it’s too late, if we ever found out at all.

I would call for an overhaul of the law and a rethink of tactics on the part of the AGO, but that would be spitting into a very robust wind. I mean, 23% of incoming lawmakers didn’t file a Final Report by the legal deadline. Do you think they’ll be eager to make the system tougher or expose themselves to actual consequences?

We deserve stronger campaign finance laws, just as we deserve transparency in our ethics processes. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.