Come on, singers. Praise the lord. It's Bishop Barling Alexander. Hallelujah. Hallelujah, lord Jesus. Hallelujah, lord God. I feel him, lord God. I feel you all over me, lord God. Hallelujah, lord God. Hugs with us. He talks with us. Hallelujah, lord God. We praise you, lord God. We glorify. We magnify your name, lord God. We come this morning, lord God. To celebrate, lord God. To celebrate the resurrection, lord God. Above our lord and savior, Jesus Christ, hallelujah. Hallelujah, lord God. We thank you this morning, lord God. For making a way for it, lord God. We thank you this morning for defeating death in the name of Jesus, lord God. We thank you, lord God. Oh, we praise you. We glorify your name, lord God. We come this morning, lord God. To lift your name, lord God. Lift your name. Oh, hi, lord God. For your name, lord God. It's hi. Lift it up, lord God. Thank you, lord God. For who you are, lord God. I've escaped, lord God. For each and every one of us, lord God. In the name of Jesus, lord God. We come this morning, lord God. Standing, lord God. Standing on your word. Standing on your promises, lord God. In the name of Jesus, lord God. For you all to say yes today, lord God. Today, lord God. And forevermore, lord God. We ask you, lord God. For your blessing, lord God. To be on this service, lord God. Let everything be done. And sent unto your glory, lord God. That you and you alone, lord God. May receive, lord God. All the glory. All the honor, lord God. All the praise, lord God. Shall be yours, lord God. Will be yours, lord God. In the name of Jesus, lord God. We ask you, lord God. That you will help each and every one of us, lord God. To get into the spirit, lord God. You said those of us. Those of us that worship you, lord God. We must, lord God. Worship you, lord God. In the name of Jesus, lord God. Be glorified this morning, lord God. In the name of Jesus, lord God. We ask you, lord God. That you annoy, lord God. The message, lord God. As you pray forth, lord God. You unadulterated word, lord God. In the name of Jesus, lord God. Lord, bless you, lord God. As we pertain, lord God. In Jesus' name, lord God. You say, do this. I'll tell you. In the name of Jesus, lord God. Be glorified. Be magnified, lord God. In the name of Jesus, lord God. Hallelujah, lord God. Hallelujah, lord Jesus. Hallelujah, lord God. You alone, lord God. Hallelujah, lord Jesus. Hallelujah, lord God. Hallelujah, lord God. Hallelujah, lord God. Help us to realize, lord God. It is not about buddies, lord God. It's not about eggs, lord God. It's all a baby. Jesus Christ, the righteous. Hallelujah. The holy one, Lord God. Hallelujah. Hallelujah, Lord Jesus. Be glorified. Be magnified in this service, Lord God. That you and you alone may receive, Lord God, all the glory, all the honor, all the praise, Lord God. In Jesus' name, in Jesus' name we pray. We're reading a scripture for today. It's found in Isaiah chapter number 53 verses 1 through 6. If you have your Bible, please open your word. If you have your phone, find it on your phone, wherever. This is a very important scripture for today. Who has believed our report? And to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant and as a root out of dry ground. He has no farm nor commoners. And when we shall see him, there is no beauty. We shall desire him. He is despised and rejected of men. A man of sorrow and acquainted with grief. And we hear as it were our faces from him. He was despised and we esteem him not. Surely he has bored our grief and carried our sorrow. Yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. Hallelujah, hallelujah. But he was wounded for our transgression. And he was bruised for our nicotine. The chest spines of our peace was upon him. And with his stripes we are healed. Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah, glory. All we like sheep have gone astray. We have turned everyone to his own way. And the Lord has laid on him the aniquities of us all. Let's say amen to the reading of the Word. Hallelujah. Our God is not dead. He is alive. Hallelujah. And I thank God for all that he did for us on Calvary. Hallelujah. Thank you, Jesus, by his blood. And by his blood, where why we have the victory not whole. Hallelujah, hallelujah. He has been given a name above every name. Hallelujah that every knee should bow and every tongue confess. What a beautiful name. The name of Jesus. Hallelujah. What a beautiful name. What a beautiful name it is. The name of Jesus Christ our. What a beautiful name it is. Nothing compares to this. What a beautiful name it is. The name of Jesus. You were the Word at the beginning. You're hidden in gloration. Now we think what a beautiful name it is.  Beautiful name. Nothing compares to this. What a beautiful name it is. The name of Jesus. You didn't want heaven without us. So Jesus, you brought him. My sin was great. Your love was greater. What could say? What a wonderful name it is. What a wonderful name it is. The name of Jesus Christ our. What a wonderful name it is. What a wonderful, what a wonderful name it is. What a wonderful, what a wonderful name it is. What a beautiful name it is. The name of Jesus Christ our. What a beautiful name it is. Just think on that. Hallelujah. How much power there is in the name of Jesus. Thank you. Hallelujah. There's no one like our Lord. There's none beside him. There's none above him. Hallelujah. All power is in his hands. Yes, Lord. Thank you, Jesus. Thank you, Lord. Is your name, your name, a strong tongue? Your name is strength. Your name is strength. A strong tongue. Is your name. Just think about the blood that was shed. Your name is strength. A strong tongue. The blood that was shed for us of Jesus. Salvation. Is your name, the name of Jesus. Thank you, Lord. Thank you, Lord. Hallelujah. Hallelujah. At this time, we ask that you stay in the presence of the Lord as we have our solo by Sister Amber White. Praise the Lord, everybody. Amen. How many is glad that the Lord is alive today? Amen. And we magnify the Lord on Resurrection Sunday. How many are glad? These are forgiven. Amen. Jesus is alive. Yes, he died on Calvary's Cross, but it didn't end there. It's celebrating time today. Come on. Stand on your feet. Stand on your feet. Let's give God some glory. Praise him. Come to celebrate Resurrection today. Hallelujah. Hallelujah. He's great. Need to be praised. Hallelujah. I feel him in this place today. Come on, somebody. I feel him. He's here. The people of God can come and celebrate the greatest miracle that has ever been. Everybody doesn't. In spite of the fact, in spite of this sunrise morning on Easter morning, Jesus got up from the grave, witnessed the court scene where he was fourth, and we saw him as they hung him on the tree. They chose Barabbas as opposed to Jesus, but Barabbas being a murderer. Just interject this as it comes to my mind. If you're doing the same thing everybody else is doing, you're doing the wrong thing because all of the people said, when they said, what must we do with Jesus? They said crucify all the people. They took him. They beat him all night long. They spat on him. They pulled his beard. They accused him on and on and on. You know the story of the crucifixion. The crucifixion was a great sacrifice that was paid for our sins, but the crucifixion wasn't the main part. Jesus says that I'm going to rise again on the third day, so it would not have been beneficial to us if he was only crucified. The fact that he says, I'm going to get up out of my grave. He didn't fight it. He said in the garden, he said to God, not my will, but your will be done in me.  He had no sin and he gave his life for us. I'll call your attention this morning to the scripture that is found in John chapter number 20. I'm going to read, going to be a little bit of reading today. I'm going to read beginning at verse number one, John chapter 20 verse one. It said, the first day of the week, cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark unto the sepulchre, and see at the stone taken away from the sepulchre, then she runneth and come to Simon Peter, the other disciples whom Jesus loved, and said unto them, they have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre. And we know not whether they have taken, they have laid him. Peter therefore went forth and other disciples came to the sepulchre. So they ran both together and other disciples did outrun Peter and came first to the sepulchre. And he stooped down and looked in, saw the linen cloth lying yet when he had not. Then cometh Simon Peter, Peter followed him and went into the sepulchre and see if the linen cloth lie.  Then went in all the other disciples which came first to the sepulchre and he saw and believed for as yet they knew not the sepulchre that he must rise again from the dead. Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. Now I'm not going to spend a lot of time didacting this portion. When I want to make an emphasis on, I use that as a base for the text for this morning. The text is found in John chapter 20 verses 11 through 18. I have some water please. All right, beginning at verse 11. It said, but Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping. As she wept, she stooped down and looked into the sepulchre. Now the disciples, when they heard that Jesus was not in the tomb, they ran to sea. But Mary lingered. Mary says, I'm trying to figure this out. And it says that Mary wept. Mary didn't just sniffle a little bit. It wasn't a little tear just fell down. Mary loved her Lord and she bawled. She cried and she harked and she started. She wept. And see, when she stepped and looked into the sepulchre, she said, if two angels in white city, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. And they said unto her, woman, why weep it now? She said unto them, because they have taken away my Lord. And I know not where they have laid him. When she had thus said, she turned herself back and saw Jesus standing and knew not that it was Jesus. And I love this part. Jesus said unto her, woman, why weep is thou? What are you crying about, woman? Whom seeketh thou? She supposed him to be the gardener and said unto him, sir, if thou hath borne him hence, tell me where thou hath laid him, and I will take him away. And Jesus said unto her, Mary, she turned herself and said unto him, Rabboni, which is to say master, Jesus said unto her, touch me not, for I'm not yet ascended to my Father, but go to my brethren, go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend into my Father and your Father and to my God and your God. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord and that he had spoken these things unto her. Now I'll expound just a minute, verse 17, where Jesus said unto her, touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. According to the study, it says that Mary was so excited when she found out, when she realized who she was talking to and who was conversing with her. She was so excited, she fell at his feet and began to hold cling to his feet. And Jesus said, no, no, that's not it. That's not where it is right now. He said, I've got to go back to my Father. And so Mary, verse 18, Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord and that he had spoken these things to her. Now, looking back in my life, in our youth growing up, I have a large family for those of you who don't know. I'm number 14 of 16 children. And it was kind of rough around our house sometimes, from time to time, when you had some good news that nobody else knew. You came and you wanted to expound. You wanted to bring something that they would be glad to hear. And so when I'm thinking, when Mary Magdalene went back and told the disciples, I'm thinking they may have verbalized what we used to do, who we used to do and say, that what does that have to do with me? Or either we would say, so what? So I'm going to talk about the so what of the resurrection. See, we were lost in sin, born in sin and shaping in iniquity. And we didn't love God. We didn't love his people. We hated his word because it went against our natural instinct. So something had to happen. We're God's greatest creation. Mankind was the greatest thing God made when he created the heaven and the earth, then he created man and woman. And we were made for his glory, but somewhere along the way, somewhere along the way, Adam and Eve got out of their self, they got out of their senses and got into their flesh and they sinned against God.  And they listened. She listened. The devil said, he just don't want you to know what he knows. That tree's got some knowledge in it. You know, what you need to do is you need to get you some knowledge on your own.  Come on, somebody. If you're your own person, let me tell you today, you're in bad shape. See, you were born in sin and sin can't enter into heaven. Come on, somebody. God says there'll be no sin in not in my house, not in the kingdom that I built. He said, I go to prepare a place for my people, for my brothers and for my sisters, that where I am, they may be also hallelujah, hallelujah. So the thing is when they turn against God, God threw them out of the garden. And now I want to help you, perhaps you may not know how many places there, there will be for you to go or head to when you close your eyes in death. There's one way up and there's another way down.   He didn't create us so that we could go to the lake of fire. He created us so that he could be glorified through us. So we could be what he wanted us to be. He called us all with purpose and he gave us an assignment. You have an assignment. Hello, somebody. You have you have an assignment that you couldn't have met the qualifications or you couldn't have met the desire to do it without the Holy Spirit. Come on, somebody. So now what I want to do is at this point I want to go to, don't worry. We're not going to be too long. Go to 2 Corinthians chapter number five. There's a remedy for our sickness. There's a remedy for our sin. The scripture said, by his stripes, we are healed. That means we have an illness and it was not talking about healing in your physical body.   Hallelujah. Oh, I want to see him. I want to look upon his face there to sing forever of his saving grace. He gave saving grace, grace that we didn't deserve. We were born in sin and we had a price to pay and the penalty for sin is death. Death. You were born with a rap sheet. You were headed for the big house. Hallelujah. Hallelujah. But Jesus wouldn't have it be so. Second Corinthians chapter five said, therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. All things have passed away. Behold, all things are become new.  He said, I went to Calvary Cross and I paid the debt that you owed.  He said, but I wouldn't have it to be because I love you. I love you enough that I'll give myself. I'll do it myself. I'll take your time. I'll take the rap for you. Come on somebody. Hallelujah. Thank God for Jesus. Thank God for Jesus. You know, he didn't have to do it because he committed no sin. He knew no sin. Match that. Hallelujah. Hallelujah. I thank God for the resurrection. Hallelujah. Because of the reaction, there is an opportunity for us to become new creatures. Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. All things have passed away.  He said, you can be made new. Come on. Clap your hands. Come on. I need y'all to help me with this. Hallelujah. Hallelujah. All things are passed away. All the stuff you used to had to do. You got to can't help it. I'm trying to behave. I'm trying to do it right. But I just can't help. This is who I am. I was born this way. How about that's a lie. Amen. All things are passed away.  Come on. Surrender. Surrender your will. Not your will, but the will of God needs to be done in our hearts and in our lives. Oh, I thought this was a celebration. Anybody celebrating with me? Hallelujah. Thank God. Thank God for Jesus. Thank God for a way out. He's a way maker and all things are of God who has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ. He reconciled. He made things right with us. We didn't make it right with him. He called us to come make it right. But he said, I'm willing to make it right for you. Hallelujah. And so that's called reconciliation. Now, in order to reconcile, there has to be a separation in the attitudes of the people. See, Jesus Christ is the righteous one. Remember, he didn't sin, but we did. We did plenty of it. We sinned and every time we sinned, we were standing right in his face and said, I ain't taking what you say. You can't make me do it. So we were in enmity with God. Everything God said, we said, no, we ain't doing that. Did y'all know that? Y'all know that's what we'd be doing? Excuse my ebonics. What we'd be doing when you trespass the law of God, you're saying, I ain't going to do it. You can't make me do it.   I'll do what I want to with it. Well, I'll tell you what, he controls your next breath. Come on, somebody. He doesn't have to give you your next. How about that being not your life? Your life is gone at the snap of your finger. Thank you. Life is like a vapor.  Vapor goes up and it goes so quickly, you can't tell when it left. So that's one thing to consider when we have, when we take a claim to our life.  I live my life the way I want to live it. You don't have to. You don't have to. You don't have to live the life you want to live. All you got to do is humble yourself before God, throw yourself at the feet of Jesus and say, Lord, I thank you for the sacrifice you made at Calvary. I thank you because you let them drive those nails in your hands and the nails in your feet and the spear in your side. I thank you that you stood for that. I thank you that you loved me that much that I don't have to keep doing all of this crazy stuff. I know what I'm doing. I know I shouldn't be doing it. Hallelujah. Hallelujah. I have reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ and have given to us the ministry of reconciliation. He said, you have the ministry. In other words, you're authorized to do reconciliation. You need to reconcile yourself with God and you need to become what I heard one preacher say when I was a boy. He said, I'm a yes man. Come on somebody and you know, don't man want to be a yes man other than him and maybe me. He said, I'm a yes man. He said everything God says, I say yes to it. Yes to your will. Yes to your way. Yes night. Yes day. Whatever you say, Lord, I say yes to your will. I humble myself. It's not about me. It's about you. You're my creator. You're my savior. You're my keeper. Verse 19 to wit that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them. Let me stop right there. Oh boy. Oh my, my, my. You know, sometimes we get excited when we see in the throwaway papers there's a great bargain. It's a great deal. Oh, I can't miss this. I'm getting a hurry. I ain't got tomorrow. I'm going to run down to the bank.  Come on somebody. He's, when we understand that Jesus said, I'm going to impute your trespasses. He said, I'm not going to even count the things that you did while you were walking in sin. Come on somebody. Somebody need to shout. Somebody need to praise God. Thank you Jesus.  I know that you've done enough.   He said, because you now in, in love with me, you're a new creature. All things have been passed away and everything, everything has become new. And he said, I'm not going to even charge you for it. Hallelujah. He said, I'm not going to give me an early out of jail. He said, I ain't going to even charge you for it. You didn't have to do that. He could have charged us. Hallelujah. Not impute their trespasses unto them and have committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ. He said, since the Lord turned your life around, he said, when he came into your heart, when he began to order your steps, he said, now you're my ambassador. And an ambassador, when he goes, he represents another. And he says to, to the people he's speaking to, he says the exact message of the man who sent him. Come on, somebody. An ambassador doesn't have any words of his own. He says what the boss said for him to say. Come on, somebody. He said, so now I made it possible for you to join in the work of building the kingdom. Now y'all can, y'all can sit back in your seat now. The rough part is over. He said, now I've called you to the team. He said, I'm building a new people. And those that I'm building, he said, there are many, many of them and I'm going to authorize you. I'm going to make you an ambassador. I'm going to have you carry my word and I want you to tell somebody. I need somebody to tell everybody. He said, because it is open for every man, woman, boy or girl, but I need a witness. I need somebody to tell it. Tell it wherever you go. Now then, we're ambassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us. We pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. Now that's the message today, what I want us to grab ahold of. He wants you. He wants you. He said, I don't care where you are. I don't care what you've done.  He said, I want you. Now it's not Uncle Sam. This is, this is our God and our Father. He said, I want you. He said, I love you enough. He said, I died for you. I didn't, I didn't die for y'all. I died for you. Hallelujah. Thank you Jesus. Thank you for dying for my sins. He says, be reconciled unto God. He said, stop saying no to God. Stop trying to show how bad you are.  Scripture said, the day that you hear my voice, heartin' not your heart. You ain't bad. I'll tell you one thing. You gettin' to fight with him. You gonna lose. You will lose. I ain't guessin'. I'm a prophet. You will lose. Thank God for Jesus. Thank God for the resurrection. Oh, I'm excited about the resurrection. If he hadn't got up, we'd be on our own and we'd have to pay the full price. Hallelujah. But thank God, he got up out of the grave. Just like he said, he rose again my soul to say, glory, glory, hallelujah to the Lamb of God. The Lamb of God who taken away the sins of the world. Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah. Thank you Jesus. I'm so glad. Anybody here glad? Hallelujah. Do you feel what I feel right about now?   Hallelujah. You have salvation when the Spirit of God comes into you, when your sins are washed away and you have the Spirit of God abiding in your heart. You have salvation. Hallelujah, hallelujah. Thank you Jesus. Hallelujah. For he has made him to be sin for us. He made him. God made Jesus his only begotten son. God made him to be sin for us. Hallelujah. He didn't know sin. It was something brand new for him to be on earth among sin. And when he was on earth, everybody was sinning. Everybody's doing their own thing, but he didn't experience it. He said, I came to be a perfect sacrifice. Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah. Thank God. He was a perfect sacrifice. Hallelujah. He didn't have to say, well, I did the best I could. He didn't say, I almost got a hundred on my test. He was knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Come on somebody. Anybody want to be saved? Anybody want to go to heaven? Anybody want to be a part of the righteousness of God? Oh, thank you Jesus. Well, so what I want to say is, I have to thank God for the resurrection. Thank God that he had the power to get himself up out of that grave. Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah. Thank you Jesus. Hallelujah. I can say some more y'all. Hallelujah. It's good. This is a good deal. It's a good deal. Can I encourage you?  But guess what? I don't care. I'm doing what he said do. He told me what to say and I said it. Huh? Hallelujah. Thine the glory. Hallelujah. Amen. Hallelujah. Thine the glory. Revive us. We need a revival.  Whatever you want from me, whatever you want my attitude to be, change me. Holy, creating me unclean, harder, renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from your presence. I want to be yours. I want to be used by you. Come on, First Lady. This message itself has been all to call already itself. But the thing about it, it's not time to be your own person and it's not time in these days to live your life like you want to live. When you look at things like I was off for seven months from church, I looked at church, but when you look at news and all that kind of stuff, Ukraine and Russia, you in it, you in Ross, I mean, in Ross shopping and you can get killed while you're in the waiting room, not knowing. You can be riding down the street, somebody on a freeway shoot at you. It is not time to do your own thing nowadays. It is too, I mean, it's just not time. And the thing about it, when Jesus come, he's going to come for those who are righteous. See, in Jesus, in Jesus, there's a safety nest. You under a umbrella of protection. And the thing about it, even if you something happened to you while you under the umbrella of protection, guess what? You know where you're going. You don't have to worry about it. But if you're not under the umbrella of protection, you know where you're going to. Like Bishop said, there's only two places heaven or hell. And the thing about it, talking about the resurrection, we who are saved is going to be in that great resurrection. When Jesus burst the cloud, we're going to get up out of the grave and those of us who are not dead, guess what's going to happen? We're going to resurrect with him. But those who don't know the Lord is not going to have that opportunity. So this message was an altar call message, really, trying to get us ready for Jesus. You know, some people don't believe that Jesus really come in. But whose reporter are you going to believe? You're going to believe the world? Or are you going to believe God? Are you going to believe the Bible? Are you going to believe the world? Well, I'm too young to be saved. I have lived my life. Oh, yes, you have. Because guess what?   You could be in your own home and die. So what that's being for us, we got to be ready. We got to be ready for it soon coming at all times because he is coming back. And those of us who's not strong in the Lord, guess what? It's time to stop playing church. Why would we come here Sunday after Sunday after Sunday after Sunday and end up going to hell? Why would we do that? Because we live in one way in the church and one way outside the church. God don't want that. We got to be ready at all times to meet the Lord. Hallelujah, hallelujah. When we sin, Jesus knew no sin, but when we sin, we sin against God. Every sin we commit is not against flesh and blood, but it's up against God. Everything we do wrong is against God. And God is the one that's going to repair us back. So I'm here for the altar call.  Now is the opportunity for you to come forth if you want to do that. And those who are weak, those who are not where they're supposed to be because if Jesus come today, could you answer that question to yourself? Will I go to heaven if he comes today? Is my life right for me to go to heaven if he come? Have I asked God to forgive me for the things I done last night or the things I even did today? So we need to all come to the altar since this is a resurrection Sunday. We need to come and ask God to forgive us for all the things we've done wrong, all of our sins, all the sins we've committed before him, to him, because it's to God that we sin and we commit those sins. Amen? David said, it's you, oh Lord, that I have sinned against. It's not about me. It's you I've sinned against. So I'm asking those who don't know the Lord or those who are weak, those who are weak in your spirit and want to get closer to God. I'm asking you to come forward if there's anybody.  It's a personal decision. It's a personal decision decide if you want to be with the Lord or not.  So if anybody want to come, you can come down. If not, those who are weak in that spirit need to come down. Those who don't know the Lord need to come down because tomorrow is not promised to us. Amen. Hallelujah. Hallelujah. Minister Amber, I know you can sing, but it's time for you to work to altar. Work to altar, dear. I'm sorry. The Lord has given us a chance, given us one more chance. He's given us one more chance to get it right. Hallelujah. Hallelujah. Thank you, Jesus. Thank you, Lord. Thank you, Lord. Thank you, Lord. Hallelujah. Hallelujah. Thank you, Jesus. Thank you, Lord. Hallelujah. We thank the Lord for those who came to the altar and we know that some of those who came don't know the Lord, but I hope that something was said to break your heart and cause you to want to seek the Lord and cause you to want to walk with the Lord because it pays to serve Jesus. Amen. It pays to serve Jesus because everything is in Jesus. Safety is in Jesus. Healing is in Jesus. Protection is in Jesus. Provision is in Jesus. Deliverance is in Jesus. Everything is in Jesus and it pays to serve him. Amen. Now, let's give ourselves a hand clap. Amen. At this time, we're going to prepare to receive the communion officials come to the table. All right. The scripture reads, The Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me. You may stand. As we come down, let's see why don't we pass the tray? Let's pass the tray. Mr. Bruce, why don't you go to the other end? Let's just pass it down and we'll receive it. Dr. Sykes, you stay on. Thank you, Jesus. Thank you, Jesus. We do this in remembrance of Jesus, the great sacrifice that he paid. It soothes my doubt. It soothes. I know the blood gives me strength. Reaches to the highest mountain that you shed on Calvary Cross for us. We thank you for your blood and we thank you, Lord God, that we can partake of your blood, Lord God, and your body, Lord God.  Help us, Lord God, to always remember, Lord God, that is the blood that gives life. It is the blood thanking we praise you, Lord God. We ask you to bless everyone that's going to partake of this, oh God, in the name of Jesus, Lord God, help us, Lord God, to surrender our lives in totality to you. In Jesus' name, we pray, amen. Hallelujah. It reaches to the highest mountain for information. This is a new. I know it was the blood. I know it was the blood. I know it was the blood for one day when I was lost. He died upon the cross. I know it was the blood for me. Oh yes, I know it was the blood. Blood came streaming down. Blood came streaming down. The blood came streaming down. Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah.  Now, let's make it really personal, just for me. Jesus came and did it, just for me. Come on, come on. Jesus came and did your hands together. Thank God for the blood. Thank God for his precious blood. And the scripture said, and they sang a song and went out. We've sang our song. You may go out. Oh no, you can't go out yet. They sang a song and took the offering out. You may bring your offering now.  Jesus, we thank you, we praise you, we glorify you, we magnify your name. We thank you for this offering, Lord God. We ask that you continue, Lord God, to multiply, Lord God. Let it continue, Lord God, to meet every need, Lord God, in the name of Jesus, Lord God. We ask you to bless those that are able to give, Lord God. And Lord, those that wasn't able to give this time, make a way the next time, Lord God, that they may be able to give and get in, Lord God, on this blessing, Lord God. You should say, give, and it shall be given back to them with good measures. Press down, shaking together, running over, shall men give unto their bosom. We thank and we praise you. Lord, we thank you for this word that came forth today, Lord God. We thank you, Lord God, that we partake of this communion, Lord God. The blood, the body of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Lord God. We thank you, Lord God, for allowing us to celebrate the resurrection, Lord God, of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Lord, if it had not been for you, where would we be, Lord God, in Jesus' name? Lord, we ask you to bring us back at your own appointed time with victory in our hearts. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen. Amen.


I like the theory of it. I'm just, I'm clear about how to be as clean about it as we'd like to be. I like the idea of limiting how many packs I can create. And I, and it doesn't bother me that that would limit franchises or subsidiaries. I mean Anthony, what are you, I mean this is your baby, what are you thinking? The less the merrier, as far as I'm concerned. Yeah, I mean that's generally what I would say. Just this question of like when you're talking about subsidiaries, I didn't think of them as these regional groups. I'm not so sure about limiting them. Maybe I don't feel that strongly, that's why I'm not being clear about it. Will, do we have any, or fall or down, or anybody, do we have any examples of corporations that are on our radar screens? An example of the misuse of this? Or an example of a corporation creating more than one pack, you know, or a group. I mean do we have examples of anything that's been sort of stuck out or egregious or has risen to the top? Under our Vermont system and the Vermont registrations, it's pretty rare that a single entity registered more than one pack. Rare but not impossible. I can't think of an example off the top of my head that gives you an indication of power. I'm searching through the registrants from the 2018 cycle right now that you can search on our website and I'm not finding any. But of course there is no particular incentive to do that now because there isn't a restriction on corporate giving in the way that would be in place under this law. So it's not surprising that you wouldn't find that now. There are examples of where individuals have been giving through a number of different corporate entities. Your former colleague Senator Galbraith used to speak a lot about the idea that people could create an innumerable number of LLCs and so forth. And I don't know how many examples of that. Certainly there are examples that one could find where people have given or kind of related corporations have all given to a certain candidate. But it costs money to set up LLCs. I mean it's not an insubstantial thing to create LLCs. To do an LLC? No. Are you kidding? It's effort. It's time. And it's some money. Right? But not much. My husband set up his LLP for $20 registration fee at the Secretary of State's office. That's what it cost him. So I was just mentioning that as a point of fact, excuse me Senator, related to the language you guys are looking at right now. I always come to you with the perspective of can I answer questions about it from the people who have regulated by it? I don't have an issue with that particular list of kinds of subsidiaries that's in there. And my answer to anybody asserting that they weren't one of those would be that it's up to them to make that argument when somebody challenges them on that basis. I think most of them will look at that list and acknowledge that they are one of those things before it will be clear that they aren't. And I think Paul's point is a good one, which is this will, our limitation in other areas, it's like the balloon. It will make this more possibly more relevant because when you're limited in one capacity, you often try and find ways that you aren't limited, obviously. This would then help keep that a little more consistent without allowing it to pop up in greater numbers elsewhere. So I have enough issues with this section. I don't have any issues with the other two. I have enough issues with this that what I would say is what my feeling is if the corporation or the public interest group or the labor organization has to have their name in the PAC, when this takes effect and we see that BPERB has now set up 23 PACs or that ExxonMobil has set up 23 PACs, we can revisit it. Good point. You can always do that. I just have enough concerns about it right now that I would not feel comfortable defending this. Anthony, what do you think? I think I would like that. You what? I think I would like what you just said. Me too. Me too. So we should be able to get a clean copy of the original with your first amendment there about the name. Yes, yes. Hello, Mr. Protan. Can I chat with you for a moment? The primer just right here. What do you mean? That means in private. So can I just one second first? I believe we are dealing with this until three o'clock. Is it possible to have a clean copy and we can vote on it? Before three? Yes, we'll get him. What do you prefer in the strike off format? Whichever is easier. We've heard that in some instances because of workload that it's easier to do an amendment, but whatever is easier for you. Okay. I prefer strike off but on this one I don't care. Okay. All right. Just two seconds. Yes. So we'll take a break right now for 15 minutes. Okay. Language and even though we can be proud that the mom was one of the first to set limits on indenture servitude and to prohibit slavery, still I think for some people, I can't necessarily personally relate because I'm a person of color. I don't have ancestors who had to deal with any of this, but I think for some people it really, it triggers very difficult ideas and I just really think we need to be as plain and straightforward as possible. Yes. So my committee knows that if I was able to do this just on my own, which I'm not, probably a good thing, we'd end it with just after therefore slavery in any form is prohibited because I think the objective of this, and I think it dovetails to what your objective is, our objective is to clarify for the public and people were even though Peter Chavez helped illuminate the misconception that people I think were under and the language is misconstrued and I think our objective in changing this amendment is to clarify for the general population and I think that clarifies it. I'd like in my view, less is more, but we have discussed this at great length and there are other concerns about legally what you're beholden to do or not beholden to do for jury duty or for debts or for mortgages or for whatever else you're required to pay or covered in other statutes. So if we're going to do a nod to current understanding, we can also embrace the fact that most of what is covered elsewhere is covered in current under our statutes in other areas. So I think less is more, but that's what we've been back and forth between because that's what VLCT asked for is also the ending after prohibition. Yes. I actually support this language and I support it because I think that it is really important to acknowledge that when the founders did this, they were saying no person born in this country or brought from any place else ought to be beholden except by their own consent to be a servant and they said slave or apprentice. Now we removed slave because I think that that little trio made it very complicated there because you really can't consent to be a slave but you can consent to be a servant or an apprentice. People do it all the time. Which could be pirates. You can consent to being a servant or an apprentice. Primarily that's the way you get to be a servant or an apprentice is by your consent. And I do like the or bond by law for the payment of debts damages. I mean that it seems to me that there is some historic value there and people are bound by law for payment of debts damages fine. We have people in jail right now who are serving out sentences for some of these things. So I do like this language. We're a committee of five and we'll make that decision. Some of us felt that we really didn't even need to do anything because slavery is already prohibited under the 13th amendment and what we learned which is really hard to tell people is that by putting that age in there and it used to be the age of 18 for women and 21 for men and then by putting that in there it wasn't referring necessarily to slavery but was referring to indentured servitude and in most states 30 was the age and so we were being really progressive here in saying you're free at 18 or you're free at 21 instead of waiting till 30. But that's hard to explain to people. We had a debate about whether we should even do anything and just leave it the way it was because historically we were the first state to prohibit slavery and if we just have that first part it's just using exactly what was in the Pennsylvania Constitution. It isn't unique to Vermont at all. It's just taken directly from the Pennsylvania Constitution and then we added the part about slavery. Brian, do you want to? Yeah, I think as Chair mentioned if you take the three people who have so far spoken you'll find three views on this. Mine is in concert with Senator McCormick tonight. I was swayed very much by his argument that we just leave things alone. As I think as he put it it does provide a useful and instructive learning opportunity for people to look at, measure progress against the way things are today and constantly have that as a frame of reference. So we, Allison is kind of on one side and Senator Wright is in the middle and I'm on the other side. I would say I think two things. We're trying to find a balance between being clear but not necessarily eliminating all the words of the people who wrote the Constitution because there's some historical significance of things that they said, some of which was not good obviously I'm not denying that. But I think the main idea behind this effort is to make it clear that slavery is prohibited and has been prohibited in Vermont. And the purpose that says the proposal would amend the Constitution to clarify that slavery in any form is prohibited. And you go down to line 12 and it says all persons born free of their natural rights slavery prohibited. So it says it twice and I'm in line 16 it says therefore slavery in any form is prohibited. So I understand where you're coming from Senator Ingram. And I'm willing, I'm not thinking it through I'm just saying that when I look at it it seems pretty clear to me that it's prohibiting slavery because it says it in very definitive terms three times within seven lines. So I'm not close to what you're saying but I'm just putting up another one of you. Yeah, I appreciate that. But I think that there are some things that we can teach in our history classes and I've put in our history books and other things that I mean the Constitution is not meant to necessarily teach people history it's meant to be the expression of our current values and thoughts and the way we look at it at the law. And that's, you know, I think that people are kind of interpreting this as it's a living document and so it's appropriate to make those changes and to teach the history separately in history class and in our history books. I agree with that. I also agree that saying it in this manner does make it clear and does reflect our current values because it does say that you can't be beholden unless by your own consent. That makes it very clear that that is our current value in my mind and I'm not going to, we're not going to discuss this anymore not because we're going to move into the next thing but so we could, the Constitution is a framework of our values and what we believe. How we actually operate and what we actually do is not always consistent with the framework and what we believe so we know that we weren't being consistent. Just one quick final thing we're allowed to do. So an interesting thing that I learned as we've been working through this process is that Article 36 in the Constitution under Articles of Amendment dated 1913 addressed the judges to the Supreme Court to revise the Constitution to bring it up to date so that it expressed its current beliefs and as opposed to how we handle the U.S. Constitution we leave it alone and then we keep adding amendments so you can see the earlier version three-fifths of a person friends and a new rating and then you see the 13th amendment come along later. So I'm a little torn and your pardon me to say well if we stuck with the process laid out in 1913 we would say contemporize it and that would include illuminating that section and we've been headed and on the other hand you can say if it has value and so I would say we're part of the wrestling matches to say do we keep historical references in there as for some people as a point of pride in the first state to have had a that's when you complete the prohibition or problematically expressed prohibition obviously I'm torn between the two camps Well I'm going to have a chair I'm going to take my prerogative and have the last word on this and then we're going to move and I would say that it is a living document and it should reflect our current values and this language does reflect our current values because it says no one born in this country or brought from overseas ought to be beholden by law to serve any person as a servant or a friend I don't think that any of us would argue that that's a value that we have nor or bound by law unless bound by the person's own consent or bound by law to the payment of death's damages fines costs and the like I don't know that anybody would or I certainly don't say that that isn't the value of ours to me it does reflect our current values it doesn't always reflect our current practices but it does reflect our current values in my mind so as the chair's prerogative thank you thank you thanks a lot thank you asking people to testify then on Thursday that would be okay and get in touch with K.O. yeah and if they have just because we only have a certain amount of time if they have different perspectives or different points of view and I will again say that it's not a popularity contest so if 20 people come in and say the same thing the same thing that's because we have and I do feel a little bit that we've had this on the agenda for a long time and nobody has asked to come in to testify so I'm a little concerned now that people are upset that we're going too fast now so I'm going to tell you it wasn't on people's very much but I understand thank you yes thank you very much thanks a lot see you later thanks dad alright so committee we're going to go to S-47 as you could tell what bill we're dealing with by looking at this in the wrong so I think that when we did S-47 we had two three decisions to make am I right here we have three decisions to make do we like the language that's there now do we want to address putting the name requiring whoever sets up a pack to have their name in the pack and what would that mean and do we want to limit the number of packs any corporation well anybody would have to be anybody the number of packs anybody I would think could form a corporation, a union, a labor union that's so those are am I do I remember writer those are three those are the three that are left okay so let's take the first one first did we is Ellen are coming do we I don't know anyway do we have are there issues with the the first one about the definition of the the purse the individual we don't know the short term yeah these are are we still on the the only ground I have is 1.1 so that's that's the answer memo of yesterday yeah overview of potential SGO right to S41 right but first what I want to do is this is is the underlying question was do you have that in here Betsy do you want to join us sure would you like me to post these documents or would you like to go through them first I can post them okay once this drafts that is right that's okay right yeah and then Betsy Ann did a memo twice yesterday and we're looking at I guess section 1A which adds to the fact that we're missing okay Betsy do you want to yeah put her at your Betsy Ann Rask with a slate of counsel pursuant to your request I drafted draft amendment 1.1 it's labeled with yesterday's date with the noon time stamp Madam Chair as you already described what this amendment overall would do would first acknowledge that PACs that don't reach current laws $1,000 spending or contribution threshold can form a PAC before they reach that threshold our current law just says once you reach $1,000 of spending and contributions that you are PAC so the first part of this amendment is just saying and you can also register as a PAC prior reaching that threshold so for example if S-47 were enacted and a corporation wanted to make a $500 contribution to a candidate this bill would prohibit the corporation doing so directly it would need to establish a PAC to do so so the language on the first page allows entities to form PACs before they reach the $1,000 threshold okay okay we'll go through the law first okay on page 2 what's happening is the idea that you had discussed the other day that a PAC would need to include in its name and state in its PAC registration form of the Secretary of State's office the full name of its connected organization which is a defined term in this amendment or any commonly known abbreviation by which it's known so for example if corporation XYZ wanted to start a PAC it would have to include the name corporation XYZ in the PAC name I included in your overview that this is similar to what's required under federal law and everybody has federal law sites where currently a PAC under federal law PAC registration name has to include the name of its connected organization and that would go for anything not just the corporation but anybody who wants to form a PAC if the trade association or a union or the Methodist Church yes the Secretary of State's office did point out to me that maybe you would want to add here if applicable in case there's not a connected organization that is establishing a PAC so that's one potential amendment that I have here and we can come back to that issue for example it's a group of neighbors that want to start a PAC another thing that was happening is on your last page on page 4 which is a small sentence page 4, lines 3 and 4 but it would prohibit a connected organization from registering for the one PAC that makes contributions so that inclusion of the phrase that makes contributions as noted in your overview on page 4 lines 3 and 4 there are lines 59, 61, 60 the line numbers just keep on going ours say 61 and 69 it's exciting it's put us on our toes it means we're all away it's on 68 and 69 hard on me, thank you I guess it's because I've send it not as a PDF and as a word doc so there must be some weird format are you a number of any hoops it doesn't make any difference we're on line 68 and 69 thank you Madam Chair, sorry about that the language is a connected organization registering more than one political committee that makes contributions that phrase as I noted in the overview that makes contributions is designed to help avoid any unconstitutional speech implications so it doesn't apply to IE only PAC super PACs which don't make contributions I noted that provision on page 2 of your overview is similar to what happens in Connecticut's law which prohibits business entities from establishing more than one PAC and it's also similar to what happens in federal law because federal law says if you're a subsidiary of a connected organization all of the connected organizations subsidiaries, divisions, parents etc all of their contributions are affiliated and relate back to that one connected organization so in a way it has somewhat of a similar effect that there's limits on contributions from that one connected organization because all the contributions relate back to that one connected organization and therefore relate to that overall contribution limit that's a PAC committee. So if you had Exxon Corporation Exxon Corporation but then you had 70 17 dealer Exxon dealers in Vermont the whole shebang could only have one PAC is that what this is saying? This language in your amendment is saying that yes as it's defining a connected organization because connected organization down below that prohibition includes any organizational parents, subsidiary, branch division department or local unit thereof I base it on the federal law how the federal law is administered to practice I'm not 100% certain but it's based on the same concept that it all relates back to the parent organization So if you had the Vermont NEA they formed a PAC you couldn't have the Wyndham County Chapter form a PAC Yes, that's how I would read that They couldn't definitely should hear from the Indian Secretary of State's office on how they read that to make sure it's clear for how they need to administer and execute the law The last part of the amendment subdivision 2 it says it's meant to clarify the members of the connected organization etc that seems to say that if the chemical producers of America which includes Monsanto has a PAC it doesn't stop Monsanto from having its own PAC That subdivision so if that that subdivision 2 at the end is relating to membership organizations like trade associations where different businesses are for example membership of the Realtors Association has a PAC when it stopped Polina Realty from having a PAC No, it wouldn't stop it Why? Because it's a trade organization Okay, okay So separate entities So if a person Bray construction and Bray plumbing owned by the same person could either or both of those businesses form a PAC Those sound like two different businesses to me Well, they would be registered separately I would assume I'm just thinking of what we want to capture and what we don't Right Are we talking about it now or are we going to I don't know Yeah, what I want to do is make sure that we get through so that we understand what's in here before we start debating But I don't see in your draft the original Oh, this would just add on to it Okay I was saying, what has she done She just rolled up Okay, so our three decisions then we'll hear some testimony on this are Number one a person Betsy's person here individual The number if they can do more than one and whether their name should be in those are three decision points Right? Okay So Do do we have any more questions for Betsy Okay Just explanations No, I just have information about the Connecticut that did this You mean you have information or you want information I'm just curious if we So the objective I think of doing all this is to try and get the conception the the perception, thank you that's really misconception thinking all these bills we're dealing with in this building the perception of influence we're trying to get at eradicating or getting producing the impact of influence through corporate giving on an individual candidate or an organization and I guess my question is in the places that have done it like Connecticut they've done one of these do we see less money being spent do we see less influence being trying to be exerted I mean what are the results that we've seen so far of corporate of bills that have been designed to limit corporate influence I don't have any information I think you have to take testimony from other places that have these prohibitions I don't know for sure I don't have that subjective knowledge Because it I just wish I and I'd love to be effective and maybe somebody has information about Connecticut choice that anybody does and I don't think it's about limiting the amount of money because we can't do that it's about influence that's not about limiting the amount of money they didn't say that okay any questions for Matty about the okay so who wants who wants to testify who wants to come up the same Dan, Paul Josh Josh yeah okay I'm I'm asking Dan and Paul first thank you for the record my name is Paul Verves I'm the executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group or BPRT we have earlier expressed support for this underlying legislation so appreciate the committee's interest in it and your investigation into some of these proposed amendments as well I would say for the record that in the last biennium we asked sent an email out to our members and asked if they were interested in this issue of banning corporate contributions to candidates and we would be happy to submit electronically for the record the names of more than 700 Romaners who took the opportunity to respond in a positive way to that to sign on to a petition saying that they supported I believe the bill was S120 last biennium and as you know that bill was essentially the same as the bill that you were initially taking up this year and the petition itself was pretty general it was just about the question of whether you supported the idea of prohibiting corporations from giving money in the same way that you know human beings can give money to candidates so that is a demonstration of public interest and public support I think for this idea that you have before you as I said I'd be happy to submit that electronically for the record as it relates to the proposed amendments that at CEM was was walking through we have also testified in the past in favor of the idea of limiting the number of political committees that an entity could create so that you're not so that you're trying to address the potential for a corporation or another entity to circumvent the restrictions that you're otherwise trying to put in place here so if a single corporation for instance could create ten different political committees that is an invitation it seems to us to work around the other restrictions that you're putting in place as a matter of public policy so we think it makes sense as long as you have the legal ability to do so and it seems that because others have already taken this action that that path is open to you we similarly think that it makes sense to require the name of whatever the term of art was that's ENU's but the affiliated entity should be part of the PAC as well and that's just a matter of transparency so that people have some better idea about who is funding that political action committee I can't imagine much of an argument against that so you know we think that that makes sense I should add that your counterparts in the house were considering some of those issues when the bill arrived over to them in the last legislative biennium and so I think that that would help to address some of the concerns that were being raised in the house government operations committee so we would be supportive of that Senator Clark to your question I don't come here today with information about how in the future you know whether there has been any identifiable reduction in influence or certainly any reduction in dollars spent overall by affected entities be they corporations or otherwise but we do know again that simply by doing this you're at least closing off one possibility for entities to again circumvent the restrictions that you're otherwise have an existing law or that you would put into law through this proposal so that is to say a single individual who may control multiple corporations couldn't give them as an individual and then as a corporation or as multiple corporations maxing out multiple times and so that that just is the case now in Connecticut at least that you don't that you have closed the door to that type of circumvention I guess you could say of the campaign finance laws so it's not perfect in that it doesn't address every aspect of undue influence in our elections we you but we all as a public policy matter are limited in some ways by what the Supreme Court has said and so we try to do what we can I think to limit undue influence in the ways that are available to us and certainly this seems like a sensible one that 22 states and the federal government have been doing for over a century for the most part and we think it does make sense with the proposed amendments that you're considering now thank you for the opportunity do you want to guess if I also are getting to say what you want to say what would it be do I do I do I will gosh I think he actually said it everything I would have said as well so can we make decisions let's take the first one first the original underlying bill the not prohibiting corporations but identifying that only an individual or a political party or a PAC can donate to a candidate or a political party it doesn't prohibit corporations and it does but backwards it doesn't because it was so hard to define corporations so this does it in that way process question yes did you want to address the amendments first and then the underlying bill or do you want to know I want to there are three issues okay the first what I'd like to do is take them off okay and I I don't care which direction we do it but the the one issue is the way we defined that only individuals in the original bill that we define the way we define the second issue is do we limit the number do we require a name associated with the PAC the name of the organization and the third issue is do we limit the number those are I think are the three decisions that we have to make and I just thought that since we had the most conversation about the underlying one that we might be able to make a decision on that first so the original okay one, two, four of the original bills introduced I have to admit I'm a little confused of this first one I'm beginning to the second two let me be the best clear let me explain then the original bill said that only an individual a political party or a PAC could contribute directly to a candidate or a political party that's the underlying that was what we had and that's what we're voting on now so in essence prohibits corporations labor unions trade associations LLC well they're corporations every type of corporation any labor union any trade association any church any nonprofit if they're not already prohibited it this is what we passed last year right I'm just trying to reconcile definitions I'm just trying to figure out are we working from the bill is introduced okay section one is totally different no I'm sorry take the original bill okay take the original bill yes that is what we're dealing with right now that is where the underlying language is about the definition of individuals and corporations it is not in the draft amendment that Betsy gave us because it's in the underlying language so that's fine so those are three issues and the first issue that I've asked us to address is this issue of defining that only individuals PACs and political parties can contribute to political parties or candidates directly that's what the original bill did okay Anthony has made a motion can we just have a show of hands on that in favor of that so we've done that one now the second issue is the name do we want to suggest that or do we want to suggest we suggest by this law actually we did there was a bill at one point that suggested that people do some oh I know it was tags for lobbyists so do we want to require a name associated the name of the underlying entity that is forming the PAC do we want to require that they have their name associated with the PAC and I don't know if this means they have to have it in all of their publications or if they just have to have it registered with the secretary of state or embedded in the name itself I thought well I mean they could have verandas for happy families which could be a PAC of VEPER or it could be a PAC of Vermont Yankee so you say Vermont Yankee verandas for happy families but in so that's the way it's registered with the secretary of state would it be required in all of their all their publications and everything Betsy yes it would be required the PAC name itself would be required to include the name of its connected organization or its abbreviation or acronym and for example this would if such a PAC issued an electioneering communication because you have to have that identification information in their electioneering communications the paid for by so if it was Properation Expoisee's PAC it would say paid for by Properation Expoisee PAC for happy families or they want to name themselves I would move that we accept that amendment I just have a question you also have to include the name of anybody like the treasurer the CEO the president this amendment would not change that whatever the current law is for example I think there are some some special identification requirements yes for example in 17 BSA 2973 if it's an electioneering communication on radio TV or internet it's not an individual the audio statement has to include the name of the title of the treasurer in the case of the PAC but this amendment would not change those PACs and when you register your PAC you have to say who your treasurer is would you ever list everybody that's in it no but you do have to list when people donate to the PAC but you don't yeah so this would what I like about this is instead of having to research who the campaign for happy families is you know up front who is sponsoring the campaign on happy families so I like this change and I would move that we accept it sorry sorry did I say that I'm sorry I realize I said that I didn't want to testify I don't say that I might want to weigh in on the possible it has been a rough morning sorry no well setting director of elections for the record Betsy Ann mentioned it before that my suggestion is just to add if applicable when it's a group of people individuals it's pretty rare that we see those PACs but just to allow for it it's hard to put the neighborhood of Elm Street PAC for not cutting down trees I was just looking at it it's an entity that's formed the PAC it's a bunch of people to that point I think if you didn't do anything if you left it alone as Betsy has drafted it now I would read it as requiring you list the names of those people it's just a random group of people let's say those of us in this room decided to start a PAC wouldn't we not identify ourselves at all in the name of the PAC because we're just random? yes that's what I'm suggesting I was going to say I was going to say we haven't we've been in the senate I'm not saying that's bad I just want to be clear I think you're right I don't know how you would if it's a group of people PAC is a group of people that get together yeah so like the Realtors PAC is is separate from the Realtor Association so do they have to because it's people donate specifically to that PAC $25 or less do they have to say the Vermont Realtor Association PAC even though it's made up the PAC itself is made up of individuals who donate to that PAC it isn't it would be in my mind now as we are talking about it would be the Vermont Realtor Association's campaign for clean water but it is individuals that are doing it how is that different than the individuals but they're not individuals they come together as a group the individuals donate to that PAC the corporation the Realtor Association does not donate to the PAC the individuals do oh I see what you mean on the other hand it is the group as a group that is sponsoring that PAC that's called campaign for clean water but it may not be all the Realtors that belong to the Realtor Association it may be 32 of them as opposed to a membership of 75 yeah but they breathe as a group to do it who are these people writing their check to $25 check to the PAC and the PAC has a name the PAC is so my question is if you have okay go ahead I hope we're not overcomplicating it I know the organization of the connected organization doesn't relate to who makes contributions to the PAC it relates to it's defined as all the group of entities that are currently considered PACs two or more individuals corporation, labor organization, etc that directly or indirectly establishes and ministers for financially supports the political committee will support because they're further defined as not contributions to it but payment of establishment administration and solicitation costs so the underlying administrative costs so in your example it would be the Realtors Association that's set up the PAC ministers the PAC regardless of who contributes to it the very limited circumstance I'm talking about is when it's two or more people in you that set up a PAC and then I don't know what you would call there is no connected organization that you could name and that's why I was saying I guess if you left it as it is my advice to those groups would be the name of your connected organization is your names sending in white go for it again so if we wanted to form Vermonters for Happy Families we would just call it Vermonters for Happy Families you would be the treasure and I donate to it so I'm on the list of donies and you are of donors and anyone else we can convince that we wouldn't call it that we would call it the PAC for Happy Families in those circumstances you would use the individual but what if it's 32 individuals and you don't have a group name well they do their group name is the neighborhood to say Elm Street they're not attached to anything they're just they want to save the trees on their street or they want to why aren't they just a non-profit why are they a PAC because they're not a non-profit they just want to support candidates they're a political action committee so somebody help us out here because I'm getting myself all the time I think the wills correctly probably Betsy wanted to say the same thing but even if it's an informal committee of you and I if you follow that sentence down if we establish a minister or financially support a political committee that's where it captures being a PAC if you're not already supporting a political committee then it would fall under the if applicable part of this I think Betsy I think if you two were already holding yourself down it's over the good government group you might include that in this name but I think the director of elections was saying to avoid these issues where it's just a couple of individuals getting together they want to form a PAC you would just say a political committee's name shall include the name of its connected organization if applicable just in case you're one of those I think the director described it as the unusual situation where a couple of real individuals are getting together and say let's form a PAC because we want to support these types of candidates so if you put the if applicable in there when the people on Elm Street decide to save the Elm trees they're not connected to a connected organization so that's not applicable then great okay let's say registered a non-profit and then set up a PAC using that non-profit's money they set up the PAC by meeting at the kitchen table right I think that makes sense thank you I certainly got myself in a knock on that one all your logic thank you okay so do we agree that the name of the connected organization should be part of the name of the PAC yes we've made a motion and it's been seconded okay so all in favor of that okay so now we move on to the third one which is well I don't think we have to make any decision on page one on that clarification that allows PACs to organize themselves before the thousand dollars just to make it clear I don't think it was allowed before but this just makes it clear okay so on to page four and this is probably four of one point one or page this is very good this would require them to only set up one I mean it would prohibit them from setting up more than one I like that idea I would support that I need some clarification I'm mostly I don't feel something nagging at the back of my brain that says I have a question I'm not even sure what it is well let me try my question and see if it helps you I am um Cumberland Farms oh no I take one that's owned by somebody in Vermont I'm Kota and Kota we have a company down there a home fuel distributor home eating fuel they have their corporate headquarters and then they have places that they owned some gas stations and some gas stations are those gas stations a part of Kota and Kota so they couldn't make their own that isn't a very good example but the question of subsidiaries is that what you're trying to get at not even, yeah not subsidiaries, what is it that you own in McDonnell? franchises, thank you subsidiaries or franchises is that what you're trying to get at? well that would be one but another one I'm thinking isn't even as as a so you have arched diocese of Vermont is that what the and then you have Catholic churches underneath that I believe but they're not incorporated separately I don't believe aren't you all part of I'm not a Catholic either I'm making this up but what would that mean I guess that the St. Michael's in Brattleboro wanted to form a little pack because they had a particular issue in Brattleboro area they could not do it if the arched dioceses had formed a pack am I right about that here? I think so what do you that's it I think it's the gray area what's considered a subsidiary subsidiary and franchises are a good challenge for this so I base this on federal law which I provide a link to there on your page 2 of your overview talks about groups being affiliated including subsidiaries collaboration so it does include subsidiaries but I think that line which is raising these questions is that should they be considered a separate entity they could very well have very different reasons for wanting to influence an election than their parent if the federal guidelines to this are as complicated as the federal guidelines on banning corporate contributions I don't think there's any way we can make this clear I'm not sure I support this section because I don't think we in my mind it's not clear enough and I'm not sure I don't know a corporation can give to more than one pack so you could have corporation X forms a pack and Y forms a pack and A they all deal in the same business whatever it is and they can all give to each other's packs we can't stop that so no we can't you can't okay we can't because we can't say where where people can give their money except we can say that they can't give it directly they can give to any pack they want we can't tell them they can't so I don't know that this if you want to one potential solution is to get rid of that language saying that a connected organization includes any organizational parents subsidiary branch division department or local unit then what would it do it would just go back to the original and that started a pack that would say they can't those same people could not form another one oh the parent organization but why wouldn't you just say then oh I see corporation, labor organization, public interest group or other entity that directly established so you couldn't the NEA couldn't have two packs one for promoting good classroom behavior and one for they were in a support candidate who promoted good classroom behavior and one that supported lowering property taxes the question is whether they could have the NEA could have a pack then the Wyndham County NEA could have a pack but if we take out subsidiary here then they could subsidiary branch division department or local unit thereof that's just suggesting we take that out which would eliminate that issue but could they so they couldn't have they couldn't have more than one pack the NEA itself for modern NEA but if we take that language out then the Wyndham County one could if they have a different issue that they just want to have a little to locate influence their local candidates that's why I agree because it's a different entity definitely think you should talk to Secretary of State's office to make sure it's clear from their perspective how they administer and execute okay what would does anybody want to weigh in on that on how that would Paul for the record Paul Burns of Ebert I think that what we're trying to what one might be trying to get at here would be where a single person or group is kind of in control of multiple corporate entities and I don't have the perfect answer here either but that's the idea is that you don't try to avoid having a single small group being able to say well we've masked out under this one and now we're going to go to this and to this and to this that they also control it may be that with the language that you're now considering the Wyndham County subsidiary or whatever the term is independently enough run that it's really not the same as saying that the NEA out of Montpelier is in control of every decision that they may but I think that's kind of what you're trying to get at is limiting the influence of that one powerful small group who could otherwise just be controlling multiple entities and giving through each and potentially maximizing their contributions to reach that's what you're at least like as I understand it that would be the intent here is to try to eliminate that type of influence and I don't know I think it's a fair question is that would you be accomplishing that with the language that you suggest that I think is on the table now so how can we further clarify this anybody any other jurisdiction done this I wanted to federal law and they're affiliated all affiliated entities they all count toward the one contribution limit of the parent corporation under federal law that's on page 2 Connecticut similarly says a business entity cannot establish more than one political committee and I just provided a link to their definition of business entity I don't have my eye on that I came down here like I lost my order or something so I can't look it up to tell you what that definition specifically is you can get the hyperlink on you have to pull up this dot on your web page and then you can access the hyperlink from there but if I recall correctly from the Connecticut business entity I don't think it had that language regarding affiliates or some city areas I think it just goes to the individual business entities itself but I have to confirm by looking at the definition so I have another question about here how do you indirectly establish I get that on page on line 72 I get that you directly establish or administer but how do you indirectly I mean tell somebody else to do it tell that gets a little vague I mean I could see that we could say if I supported this at all it would have to say something like a corporation labor organization public interest group or other entity that directly establishes administers or establishes or administers a political act a political committee action committee can't do more than one in my mind that's clear it says that a corporation a labor what does it say a corporation labor organization public interest group or other entity that directly establishes or administers one but I got the directly or indirectly from the federal law definition but then as candy I have to stick with it I'm always I'm in terms of campaign finance I have to tell you I'm very leery of sticking with any federal law just having learned what I learned when we were oh thank you so where are we game well I lost the feeling of it I'm clear about how to be as clean about it as we'd like I like the idea of limiting how many packs I can create and I doesn't bother me that that would limit franchises or subsidiaries I mean Anthony what are you I mean this is your baby what are you thinking the less the married as far as I'm yeah I mean that's generally what I would say just this question of like talking about subsidiaries I didn't think of them as these regional groups I'm not so sure about limiting them maybe I don't feel that strongly that's why I'm not being clear about it well do we have any or fall or down or anybody do we have any examples of corporations that you know that are on our radar screens of an example of the misuse of this what is in the audience or an example of a corporation creating more than one pack that you know our group I mean do we have examples of anything that's been sort of stuck out or egregious or has bothered has risen to the top under our Vermont system and the Vermont registrations it's pretty rare that a single entity registered for more than one pack rare but not impossible I can't think of an example off the top of my head that gives you an indication of power I'm searching through the registrants from the 2018 cycle right now that you can search on our website and I'm not finding any but of course there is no particular incentive to do that now because there isn't a restriction on corporate giving in the way that would not place under this law so it's not surprising that you wouldn't find that now there are examples of where individuals have been giving through a number of different corporate entities your former colleague Senator Galbraith used to speak a lot about the idea that people could create an innumerable number of LLCs and so forth I don't know how many examples of this certainly there are examples that one could find where people have given or kind of related corporations have all given to a certain kind of differences that it costs money to set up LLCs I mean it's not an insubstantial thing to create LLCs to do an LLC? No are you kidding? It's effort it's time and it's some money right? But not much My husband set up his LLP for $20 registration fee at the Secretary of State's office that's what it cost him So this is a I was just mentioning that as a point of fact so related to the language you guys are looking at right now I always come with the perspective of can I answer questions about it from the people who have regulated by it I don't have an issue with that I have a list of kinds of subsidiaries that's in there and my answer to anybody asserting that they weren't one of those would be that it's up to them to make that argument when somebody challenges them on that basis I think most of them will look at that list and acknowledge that they are one of those things before it will be clear that they are And I think Paul's point is a good one which is this this will our limitation in other areas it's like the balloon it will push it into it will make this more possibly more relevant because when you're limited in one capacity you often try and find ways that you are limited obviously and this would then help keep that a little more consistent without allowing it to pop up in greater numbers elsewhere So I have issues with this section I don't have any issues with the other two I have enough issues with this that what I would say is what my feeling is if if the corporation or the public interest group or the labor organization has to have their name in the pack when this takes effect and we see that VPURB has now set up 23 packs that ExxonMobil has set up 23 packs we can revisit it I just have enough concerns about it right now that I would not feel comfortable defending this that's Anthony what do you think? I can go with that You what? I can go with what you just said So we should be able to get a clean copy of the original with your the first amendment there about the the name Yes Hello Mr. Protan I got a chat with you for a moment The private or just right here Which are we? Like out here That means in private So could I just one second first Is we have this I believe we are dealing with this until three o'clock Is it possible to have a clean copy and we can vote on it? The fourth three Yes we'll get him Would you prefer a straight out format? Whichever is easier we've heard that in some cases because of workload it's easier to do an amendment but whatever is easier for you Okay I prefer strike all but on this one I don't care All right Just two seconds So we'll do that We'll take a break right now for 15 minutes Really? So committee Senator Bray wasn't here when we made our decisions we'd hopefully agree with our decisions We had three issues to decide one was the underlying question of whether we should limit contributions to candidates and political parties from only individuals, and political parties and we all agreed on that then we had the question of should the name of any path the founder of the path the leader of the pack I was going to say good song founder Should the organization the entity that creates the path have to embed their name in the path and we all agreed with that and then the third question was should we limit the number of packs that any entity can form and we felt there were so many questions that we couldn't and what we would do is since they have to have their names in their packs now anyway in four years we'll come back and say it's a problem or it's not a problem that was the I have a clean draft here draft 1.1 as of 2.35 this afternoon that we can look at and okay Betsy if you want to just tell us what we're voting on alright yeah Betsy and I just want to say to council I structured it as a strike all just to have it all in one place and so you'll see the sections going in chronological order so it's a little backwards from the main picture but it starts out with that definition of a pack this came from the amendment you just reviewed page 1 allows someone to start a pack before they reach current law is $1000 threshold page 2 starting in line 7 and 9 same concept you can start a pack before you reach the $1000 threshold starting on page 2 line 10 there is the requirement that a pack's name shall include the full name of its connected organization if applicable adding in that if applicable and then it says or clearly recognize abbreviation or acronym Chris just so that you know that if applicable is there just because in the few instances where you have the neighborhood of ellen street that organizes to save the elmetries there really isn't any found anywhere so that's not only in its name there but at the bottom of page 2 like you already saw in your amendment if applicable when they register they'd have to include the name of their connected organization or the abbreviation or acronym then you're moving on over to page 4 I feel a little bit how are they going to know if it's applicable other than call it well there is a definition of connected organization so they'll know that a connected organization means for a more informal committee of two or more people for a labor organization so they'll have to decide they'll probably call up the director say what's this about the director probably say are you a connected organization here's the definition so the definition of connected organization is just not in this draft it is actually on page 4 so you'll see that where on page 4 it starts with line 3 and subsection D as using the section with the definition of connected organization what I removed from this draft is what appeared in your previous amendment which was that limit on the number of packs a connected organization could establish so that is out of this one it's not in here anymore it's been removed so you got rid of that now you just have the definition of a connected organization it's the same thing you looked at before except I got rid of the language to say including any organizational parent subsidiary branch division department because it didn't seem to matter anymore if you're having the pack name included in it and it would allow would hopefully lessen the confusion between the state NEA and the county NEA so we'll see if it's a problem call it wait and see there you go I did include the directly or indirectly because of some of the conversation or I kept that in about here real-terms association says hey employee take this money and go start a pack to address that situation if that's okay I can take it out no it can be there it's going to be a little bit harder to but it's there members of the connected organization do not change then section 3 starting at the bottom of page 4 and moving on is the same exact language as the bill was introduced with the prohibition on anybody but an individual pack or party giving it to a candidate or party so same exact language in the bills introduced no change there bottom of page 7 same effective date that weird date is just the date of a new election cycle after our 2020 general election and then at the top of page 8 I just changed the title of the bill to read and act relating the person to authorize to make contributions to candidates and political parties that was the original title but then also and a political name committee names just since you're addressing that issue as well so I know the answer to this but on page 6 notwithstanding notwithstanding that means we've basically been negating the words that came before it that's right, that's saying despite the contribution limits above where it says any single source can give to a candidate or party only individuals, packs and parties can give to a candidate or party that's right does somebody want to make a motion? I would make a motion I would make a motion that we move S47 the strike all S47 well I guess our first motion is to accept the amendment I would move that we accept the strike all amendment of S47 draft 1.1 S47 as amended by draft 1.5 any second okay, do you want to call the roll? I'd be thrilled to Clarkson, I'm listening here because she was like a buffer to me I guess start with me Clarkson, yes Brett, yes Polina, yes no second motion I would move S47 as amended be reported favorably to be reported favorably by this committee I'll second that okay can I change my vote on the first one? yes okay so the second one is to move S47 favorably and that would begin with Clarkson, yes Brett, yes Polina, yes Anthony would you like to report this? sure you have to do this that's right yes, you have to do that and you record it you don't have to do it you have to do Betsy's little thing Betsy's writing out the summary so yeah I just didn't understand why Clarkson comes before Brett I don't understand because she's the Clark I don't know, I'm really missing Claire okay I can switch that around just make it alphabetical alphabetical okay so thank you


This 2016 Ram 1500 regular cab long box is stock number 12380Z. We are here at Summit Automotive in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. Your new and used light duty truck and Ram headquarters. This 2016 Ram 1500 has the 5.7 liter V8 Hemi engine. This truck has been fully safety and inspected by our service shop for the state of Wisconsin inspection process. It has a fresh oil and filter change. All the fluid tab and checked and topped off in this truck is 100% ready to go. Really nice condition all the way around. Inside out we're going to go through everything on this truck. Bright white is the color. We shoot all of our videos in 1080p 60 frames per second. So if you have HD capabilities on your computer, tablet, smartphone or television, I highly recommend turning them on right now because it is definitely your best way to check out the quality condition and options of the truck before seeing it in person. If you like the video and want to subscribe to our YouTube channel to see all the videos we do each and every day, here at Summit Auto in the upper right hand part of the screen is a link to our YouTube channel subscribe page. Click that and then click the bell notifications. You'll get updates on the videos we do each and every day. It comes with these 17 inch painted alloy rims and it has Goodyear Wrangler SRA 26570R17 tires and these tires have I'd say probably 60-70% of the tread left on them. So really good tread on those tires. Front fender is in excellent condition. No dents or dings on there. Headlight lenses are nice and clear. That front bumper, no major dents or dings on that looks really good. The grille is in nice shape and the hood is in excellent condition as well. Passenger side front fender looks really good too and the passenger side rim no major scuffs or scrapes on there. Not a whole bunch of options on this truck. It's a tradesman edition. Definitely a work truck but for being a work truck it's in excellent condition and that's what we try to convey in these videos. So if you're close by or far away or close by and can't make the trip down you can still see the truck here. The truck and have confidence in the vehicle that you're looking at before even get here. So when you do get here there's absolutely no surprises and you can make a smart and informed buying decision from wherever you're at and if this video helps you make that buying decision let your salesman know that you saw the video and that Brett sent you. Back rim is in excellent shape and the back tires have just about as much tread as the front tires. I'd say probably closer to 50 to 60 percent of the tread back here. Has the plastic wheel well liners. The wheel wells look really good framing under bodies in really nice shape. It's like that all the way underneath. Lower rockers, cab corners all look really good as well. Does have bed rail covers coming around to the back. Rear bumper is in nice shape. Does have the full towing package which includes a receiver hitch four pin and seven pin wiring. The tailgate is in excellent condition as well. It does have a locking tailgate backup camera and a very nice spray and bed liner. Bed's in really nice condition and that tailgate shuts nice and solidly. As you go down the driver's side just as clean as that passenger's side no dents, no dings on the box. Very nice condition and for full disclosure this back rim is in excellent shape as well. Driver's side door looks good. Does have the heated fold up tow mirrors built in directional signals. They also fold in like so. This one does have the tradesman package and inside you get the gray cloth interior. No rips or tears on the seats. They're in nice shape. Does have side-current airbags. Comes with a set of weather tech floor mats, auto headlamps, power windows, power locks and power mirrors. Will hop inside, turn the ignition on, check out the miles, the radio and everything that this interior has to offer. You can see that this one has 54,838 miles digital spinometer compass and outside temperature display. You do get bluetooth and information center controls on the left, cruise controls on the right and that steering wheel's in really nice condition. Six speed automatic transmission with the optional tap shift. Turned-out four-wheel drive and this one has the Uconnect five-inch touchscreen radio, AM FM and Sirius XM radio capabilities. This is also where your backup camera shows up. That's working nicely. Turned-out four-wheel drive, climate controls and your factory brake controllers right there. Stability control and tow haul mode. Carpeting is nice and clean and the passenger side format and seat are in excellent condition as well. No rips or tears on there and the headliner is in excellent shape as well. Map lights up there. We'll take a quick look behind the seats and then we'll start it off and take a look under the hood. You do get a nice storage area back here. Latch tether anchors and really nice and clean back there. Like I said, we'll start it up. Take a look under the hood. Starts right up. No check engine lights or anything like that. I would personally like to thank you for checking out the video today and hopefully from this HD video you will have been able to verify the quality and condition of this truck inside and out. Under the hood we have the 5.7 liter V8 Hemi engine. Engine bay is very clean runs, very smooth. Once again this truck has been fully safe and inspected by our service shop has a fresh oil and filter change. All the fluids have been checked and topped off. And this truck is 100%. We're ready to go. There is your mission sticker right there. And to see more pictures of this truck or one of our other 450 new and used cars, trucks, SUVs, minivans, Wranglers, half tons, three quarter tons, one tons. You name it, we got to go to that website right there at www.summitauto.com. Full pictures and descriptions of every single vehicle from two locations all at summitauto.com. And if you'd like to check out more HD videos you can go to youtube.com slash summit auto. Remember to like, subscribe and share on this video and all the videos that you see there. Click the bell notifications. You'll get updates on the videos we do each and every day here at Summit Auto. In fact, in a second you will see a link to subscribe to our YouTube channel in the upper left. Link to more Ram 1500 truck videos like this one in the upper right. A link to this vehicle on our website in the lower left and a link to one of our latest YouTube videos in the lower right. Click those check us out. And we're super excited to help you with this Ultra Clean 2016 Ram 1500 regular cab long box tradesman in bright white clear coat. Thanks again for checking out the video. Remember to like, subscribe and share.