Connect with us

Finance

In Virginia’s Democratic legislature, campaign finance reform bills languish without votes – Virginia Mercury

Published

on

In Virginia’s Democratic legislature, campaign finance reform bills languish without votes – Virginia Mercury

As it gets more and more expensive to win a seat in the Virginia General Assembly, the state legislature continues to find new ways to stifle efforts to put limits on the state’s wide-open campaign finance laws.

This year, several bills meant to slow the flow of money into Virginia politics have been blocked without lawmakers taking a recorded vote showing that’s what they’re doing.

For the last decade, proposals have been introduced to create stricter campaign finance limits in Virginia and boost public confidence that the legislature can’t be bought by special interests writing checks of unlimited size. 

Some Democrats have been vocal about making campaign finance reform a priority, and many have accepted big checks from Clean Virginia, a well-funded advocacy group focused on energy and campaign finance reform that says its mission is to “fight corruption in Virginia politics.” 

But the party’s retaking of full control of the General Assembly this year doesn’t appear to be producing any breakthroughs on campaign finance issues as Tuesday’s crossover deadline approaches. As the two chambers rush to finish work on their own bills, no major campaign finance legislation has made it through both sides of the Capitol. If those positions hold in the second half of the session, none of the bills will win final passage.

Advertisement

Instead, Democratic-sponsored campaign finance proposals are languishing in Democratic-controlled committees, where several bills have been allowed to expire without a hearing. 

When Del. Josh Cole, D-Prince William, presented a bill that would prohibit candidates from accepting campaign money from public utilities like Dominion Energy, the proposal died without a vote when no one on the 22-member House Privileges and Elections Committee made a motion for or against it. A bill sponsored by Del. David Bulova, D-Fairfax, that would have set caps on donations from both corporations and individuals was never docketed by the same committee.

In an interview, Cole said he’ll keep fighting for campaign finance reform, despite his latest bill failing in an unusual fashion.

“Time will tell what will happen,” Cole said. “The appetite is definitely there for it.”

On the Senate side, another utility-focused campaign finance reform bill sponsored by Sen. Danica Roem, D-Prince William, made it out of the chamber’s elections committee, but stalled when it was sent to the Finance and Appropriations Committee. It never got a hearing there, despite being projected to have no impact on the state budget.

Advertisement

When asked why Roem’s bill wasn’t docketed, Sen. Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, criticized the bill itself instead of offering any procedural explanation.

“The people who are complaining about Dominion being a monopoly want to replace them,” Lucas said. “They want to be the monopoly. So what’s the difference?”

Clean Virginia’s critics have often accused the organization and its main funder, wealthy Charlottesville investor Michael Bills, of engaging in a new form of influence-peddling by offering substantial checks to lawmakers who vow to stop accepting money from Dominion.

In an interview, Roem didn’t sound disheartened over her bill’s fate.

“This is the first time we’ve ever gotten out of committee. This still marks progress,” Roem said. “Clearly we have more steps to go.”

Advertisement

Nancy Morgan, a campaign finance reform advocate with BigMoneyOutVA, said Democratic leaders appear to be “strong-arming the members to kill the bills in untransparent ways.”

“Not allowing bills to be voted on, or even heard by legislators, is anathema to our democratic process,” Morgan’s group said in a statement last week.

A seemingly less controversial proposal to prohibit spending campaign cash on personal uses unrelated to politics — something already banned at the federal level and in almost every other state — looked to be on track to pass this year after clearing the state Senate 35-4 and passing the House elections committee unanimously. But the House version was bottled up in the budget-writing committee after three state agencies estimated it would cost them more than $745,000 to add more staff to implement the law. 

However, the legislature’s own fiscal analysts sharply disagreed with that figure, saying the law would create virtually no new costs and wouldn’t substantially add to anyone’s existing workload.

“It just seemed highly inflated,” said Del. Cia Price, D-Newport News, who chairs the House elections committee and formally requested a second opinion on the steep cost estimate.

Advertisement

In a written analysis attached to the personal use bill, staffers at the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission said they concluded the proposal wouldn’t substantially burden state agencies after looking at similar laws in Georgia and Tennessee. Both states already have systems for investigating complaints and issuing advisory opinions similar to what the Virginia proposal envisioned, JLARC found, and the strain on staff is minimal because there are usually just a few cases to handle per year.

“JLARC estimates the fiscal impact of the bill would be negligible,” the General Assembly’s analysts said in their rebuttal to the estimates from the Virginia Department of Elections and Virginia Department of Corrections.

The JLARC statement didn’t address an additional $429,426 estimate from the office of Attorney General Jason Miyares, which claimed it would need two additional attorneys and a paralegal to help implement the law.

Despite JLARC disputing the projected costs of the personal use bill, Del. Marcus Simon, D-Fairfax, said its chances of passage are now “slim to none” after failing to pass the House. The House can still take up the Senate version of the bill, but Simon said it’s unlikely to be a priority for the body late in the session as lawmakers try to finalize more big-ticket items.

Despite Simon’s less-than-optimistic prediction about the fate of efforts to ban the personal use of campaign money, Clean Virginia said it still hopes a “commonsense ban” can pass this year after clearing the Senate with an “overwhelming bipartisan majority.”

Advertisement

Passage of this bill would represent a strong first step towards comprehensive campaign finance and ethics reform in Virginia,” said Clean Virginia Legislative Director Dan Holmes.

General Assembly members and statewide officeholders are prohibited from raising campaign funds during legislative sessions, but the latest effort to extend that ban to special sessions also appears to be on track to die without lawmakers attaching their names to a vote.

A bipartisan bill banning fundraising during “active” special sessions made it to the Senate floor. But in an unrecorded voice vote last week, the Senate chose to send the bill back to its elections committee, a maneuver that killed the bill because the panel was already done with its work on Senate bills.

On the floor, Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell, D-Fairfax, said the bill “had a lot of issues.”

“It’s going to create more problems than it’s going to solve,” Surovell said.

Advertisement

Sen. David Suetterlein, R-Roanoke, the bill’s sponsor, objected to the move, saying his legislation appeared to be heading for the same death by unrecorded vote that often befalls bills to ban the personal use of campaign funds.

“Every year it found a different way to die on an unrecorded vote,” Suetterlein said.

Mercury reporters Nathaniel Cline and Charlie Paullin contributed to this story.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Advertisement

Advertisement

Finance

Abacus Global CEO on record 2025 growth – ICYMI

Published

on

Abacus Global CEO on record 2025 growth – ICYMI
Abacus Global CEO on record 2025 growth – ICYMI Proactive uses images sourced from Shutterstock

Abacus Global Management (NYSE:ABX) earlier this week reported record-setting financial and operational performance for 2025, highlighting strong momentum in the rapidly expanding life settlements market.

CEO Jay Jackson said the company delivered more than 100% year-over-year growth across key financial metrics, including EBITDA, adjusted net income, and gross results. He emphasized that beyond headline figures, the underlying operational activity demonstrated the strength of the platform.

Jackson noted that Abacus acquired more than 1,300 life insurance policies during the year and generated nearly $180 million in realized gains. The company also sold over 1,000 policies, underscoring the liquidity and scalability of its model. He added that more than $600 million in capital was deployed, enabling over 1,100 seniors to access value from previously illiquid assets.

“We’re helping clients find liquidity in assets they didn’t know had it — their life insurance policies,” Jackson said.

Jackson explained that life insurance policies are increasingly being recognized as a viable financial asset class.

Advertisement

Looking ahead, Jackson pointed to a substantial growth runway, noting that the total addressable market is approximately $14 trillion, while Abacus has only penetrated a small fraction of that opportunity. He suggested that ongoing macroeconomic uncertainty is driving investor demand for uncorrelated assets, positioning life settlements as an attractive alternative.

As a key catalyst for future growth, the company recently completed a minority investment in Manning & Napier, a long-established wealth and asset management firm. Jackson said the partnership provides access to more than 3,400 retail clients, many of whom may not yet be aware of the liquidity potential within their life insurance holdings.

He indicated that this strategic relationship could enhance origination volumes and contribute to continued record performance into 2026.

“We’re one of the largest originators, and our record numbers are an indicator of what’s coming next,” he said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

New Funding Models Needed As Global Health Faces Growing Financial Strain – Health Policy Watch

Published

on

New Funding Models Needed As Global Health Faces Growing Financial Strain – Health Policy Watch
Christoph Benn (left) and Patrick Silborn

Global health is facing a funding crisis. Aid is shrinking, debt is rising, and the needs are only increasing. According to Christoph Benn of the Joep Lange Institute and Patrik Silborn of UNICEF Afghanistan, health systems will need to fundamentally rethink how they finance and sustain care.

On a recent episode of the Global Health Matters podcast, host Gary Aslanyan was joined by these two experts, who said “innovative finance” has become central to discussions on sustaining health systems.

Benn said that while the term is widely used, few agree on what it actually means. He described it as a “spectrum” of approaches, ranging from philanthropic grants and conditional funding to private-sector investment models that expect financial returns.

“It has frustrated us deeply that so many people are talking about innovative finance, but very few actually know what they’re talking about,” Benn said.

Advertisement

Silborn emphasised that these mechanisms should not be treated as one-size-fits-all solutions. Instead, financing models must be designed around specific problems whether that means raising new funds, improving efficiency, or linking payments to measurable outcomes.

Drawing on his experience in Rwanda, Silborn described how a results-based funding model tied disbursements directly to performance, helping the country to maintain progress against major diseases despite reduced funding.

Both experts stressed that private-sector engagement requires a clear understanding of incentives.

“Private corporations are not charities,” Benn said. They can, however, contribute through marketing partnerships, technical expertise, or investment models that align financial returns with social outcomes.
Looking ahead, Benn pointed to targeted taxes and debt swaps as among the most scalable tools. Still, both warned that innovative finance is not a substitute for public responsibility.

“It only works when it is designed to solve real problems in specific contexts,” Benn said, underscoring that strong systems and governance remain essential to any lasting solution.

Advertisement

Listen to the full episode >>

Read more about Global Health Matters podcasts on Health Policy Watch >>

Image Credits: Global Health Matters podcast.

Combat the infodemic in health information and support health policy reporting from the global South. Our growing network of journalists in Africa, Asia, Geneva and New York connect the dots between regional realities and the big global debates, with evidence-based, open access news and analysis. To make a personal or organisational contribution click here.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

Coalition urges lawmakers to advance South Carolina Financial Freedom Act

Published

on

Coalition urges lawmakers to advance South Carolina Financial Freedom Act

Dozens of local elected officials from across South Carolina are urging state lawmakers to pass legislation that would allow cities, counties and school districts to deposit taxpayer funds in the financial institution of their choice, including qualified credit unions.

The Palmetto Public Deposits Coalition, formed by more than 40 mayors, county council members and municipal leaders have signed a joint letter calling on the General Assembly to advance the South Carolina Financial Freedom Act, a bill that, if signed, would lift long-standing restrictions that require public entities to deposit funds exclusively in commercial banks, even though state law already allows credit unions to accept public deposits.

The coalition argues the current system limits competition and prevents local governments from seeking potentially better rates, lower fees and more responsive service.

READ MORE | Lowcountry residents feel squeeze as inflation rises 25% over five years

“Local governments should have the same financial freedom that families and businesses have — the ability to choose the financial institution that best meets their needs,” Rick Osborn, chairman of the Palmetto Public Deposits Coalition, explained. “This commonsense reform will introduce healthy competition, help stretch taxpayer dollars further, and strengthen partnerships with community-focused financial institutions that are deeply invested in South Carolina.”

Advertisement

The efforts also won support from the South Carolina Association of Counties and the Municipal Association of South Carolina, whose boards have formally endorsed expanding deposit options. Their backing signals broad agreement among local government officials that the law should be modernized.

In their letter to lawmakers, the coalition argued that permitting credit unions to hold public deposits would restore financial choice and improve outcomes for residents.

“This legislation is about giving local leaders more tools to serve residents effectively and make responsible financial decisions,” said Goose Creek Mayor Greg Habib, one of the signatories.

READ MORE | Treasury to hold conferences on AI regulation reductions for banks

The Financial Freedom Act would allow, but not require, public entities to deposit funds in qualified credit unions. Coalition members said the bill is not designed to favor one type of institution over another, but to encourage competition in a market currently limited to commercial banks, many of which operate outside the state.

Advertisement

The Palmetto Public Deposits Coalition said it will continue working with local leaders, state associations and lawmakers as the legislation moves through the current session.

Continue Reading

Trending