Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/01/2015 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB13 | |
| HB158 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 158 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 41 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 13
"An Act requiring notice of the postage required to
mail an absentee ballot on the envelope provided by
the division of elections for returning an absentee
ballot; and repealing the authority to include certain
material from a political party in the election
pamphlet."
2:08:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, SPONSOR, discussed that the bill
related to the official election pamphlet. He highlighted
that the pamphlet carried an air of authenticity because it
was published by the government of the State of Alaska;
therefore, voters tended to give far more credence to the
words in the election pamphlet than they did to campaign
mailers. He asserted that because candidates could afford
to advertise in the pamphlet, it was a campaign equalizer.
He stated that the pamphlet was basically a "vote for me"
publication for candidates, judges, and initiatives. He
furthered that candidates could write almost anything they
chose "however ridiculous it may be" without editing by the
state, which he believed was fine. He continued that
unfortunately there was a section in the pamphlet where any
registered political party could make campaign statements,
which could mean escalated attacks on candidates. He
stressed that the pamphlet was supposed to be a neutral
governmental publication about who and what the voters were
voting on. He communicated that the bill would eliminate
political party advertisements in the official election
pamphlet. He urged members to pass the bill.
Representative Gattis wondered about the history. She had
noticed the advertisements in the past election, but not
prior to that. Representative Lynn asked for clarification.
Representative Gattis asked how it had come to be that the
state allowed political parties to advertise. She wondered
if advertisement in the pamphlet was open to everyone.
Representative Lynn deferred the question to the
department.
GAIL FENUMIAI, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, OFFICE OF
THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (via teleconference), answered that
current state law only allowed for political parties to
purchase space in the pamphlet (outside of any information
that could be voluntarily provided by candidates running
for office).
Representative Gattis asked about the history behind the
law. Ms. Fenumiai replied that the advertisements had been
allowed for at least the past twenty years.
Representative Gara expounded that the ability for
political parties to advertise in the pamphlet had been
around for a long-time. He detailed that historically
parties had used two pages in the pamphlet to highlight
their platform; however, in the past one of the parties had
determined that personal advertisements were allowed. He
believed the advertisements would only escalate in the
future. He asked for verification that historically parties
could use the space to highlight their platforms.
Ms. Fenumiai asked Representative Gara to repeat the
question.
Representative Gara asked for confirmation that
historically parties had used two pages in the pamphlet to
highlight their platform. Ms. Fenumiai replied in the
affirmative.
Representative Gara noted that it had only been in the past
year that one of the political parties had figured out that
the advertisement against another party was legal. He
reasoned that the advertisements could target any state or
federal candidate. He and Representative Lynn were both
opposed to the state paying for negative ads.
Co-Chair Thompson asked about how much money was brought in
through advertising. He observed that the fiscal note was
zero. Ms. Fenumiai responded that political parties were
allowed to pay for up to two pages at $600 per page. She
believed there were a total of four political party pages
in the 2014 pamphlet, which brought in about $2,400.
Co-Chair Thompson observed that there was a fiscal impact,
but it was not large.
2:15:11 PM
Co-Chair Neuman asked whether there had been complaints
about advertisements prior to the past year. Ms. Fenumiai
replied that the past election was the first year she could
recall receiving complaints.
Co-Chair Neuman asked about sideboards in the law that
addressed what could be included in the advertisements and
who could advertise. Ms. Fenumiai responded that there
were no limitations; the division accepted what was
provided by candidates and parties. She added that a
disclaimer was provided at the bottom of the pages
indicating which entity paid for the ad.
Co-Chair Neuman surmised that any political party within
the State of Alaska that was recognized by the Division of
Elections was allowed to place an advertisement. Ms.
Fenumiai answered in the affirmative; any recognized
political party could place an ad in the pamphlet.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if the division had looked at
adopting sideboards that addressed what could or could not
be included in an ad to prevent a negative impact. Ms.
Fenumiai replied that the division had not considered the
issue. Co-Chair Neuman asserted that the division had
probably thought about the idea, but did not want to
discuss it.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that Representatives Pruitt and
Wilson had joined the meeting.
Representative Kawasaki asked if any political party could
advertise in the pamphlet even if they did not have a
candidate in the race. Ms. Fenumiai responded that any
recognized party could advertise even if they did not have
a candidate.
Representative Kawasaki thought he had read that candidates
were not allowed to make statements about another
candidate. He thought the language had to be positive. Ms.
Fenumiai replied that there were no provisions specifying
what the subject matter of a candidate's statement could
be. There were limits to the number of words a candidate's
biography and statement could contain.
Representative Kawasaki thought he recalled the Division of
Election's specifying that a candidate's statement could
not be about another person.
2:19:32 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for verification that there were
no standards as to what candidates could put in the
pamphlet. Ms. Fenumiai confirmed that there were no
standards in place.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if there could be any limits on
political speech under the First Amendment [to the U.S.
Constitution]. Ms. Fenumiai deferred the question.
Representative Lynn replied that according to Legislative
Legal Services there were no First Amendment problems with
the bill.
Vice-Chair Saddler countered that there were no First
Amendment problems with removing advertisements; however,
he believed limiting the content of advertisements would
violate the First Amendment.
JOANNA LEWIS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, replied that
she had learned from Legislative Legal Services that it was
legal to limit who was allowed to put information into the
pamphlet, but the limit had to be applied equally across
the board (i.e. the limit could not be applied to one party
but not another).
Representative Lynn expounded that it had always been his
understanding that it was not legal for a candidate to
mention another candidate's name in their statement
published in the pamphlet.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked how many parties were currently
eligible to advertise in the pamphlet. He wondered if
historically all eligible parties had tended to take
advantage of the advertising opportunity. Ms. Fenumiai
replied that all parties had the opportunity to provide
information in the pamphlet; there were currently four
parties recognized in Alaska.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked Ms. Fenumiai to identify the four
parties. Ms. Fenumiai replied that the recognized parties
were the Alaskan Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, and
Independence parties. She relayed that the Alaskan
Democratic, Libertarian, and Republican parties had
purchased pages in the 2014 general election pamphlet.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether all parties tended to
place ads in the pamphlet. Ms. Fenumiai answered that the
two major parties had historically been the ones to provide
ads to pamphlets.
2:23:50 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked how a political party
became recognized and eligible to purchase a page in the
pamphlet. Ms. Fenumiai answered that a party was required
to submit a form and run a candidate for governor who had
received at least 3 percent of the total vote in the
preceding general election (if there was not a governor
race, the U.S. senator or representative races were used).
By the time the pamphlet was published the political
parties were already set for the year.
Representative Guttenberg discussed that the next election
cycle was presidential. He noted that many political
parties would have presidential candidates on the ballot.
He wondered if a political party from another state (with a
presidential candidate) would be prevented from having a
page in the election book. Ms. Fenumiai did not believe it
would qualify. She detailed that per Alaska statute a
political party was defined as an organized group of voters
that represents a political program and that ran a
candidate (for governor, U.S. Senate, or Congress).
Representative Guttenberg addressed the term "sideboards"
that he equated to political free speech. He wondered if
the Division of Elections was capable of beating a
challenge that could arise if it put any sideboards on
something [e.g. the election pamphlet]. Ms. Fenumiai
deferred the question to the Department of Law.
Representative Guttenberg wondered if a challenge had ever
arisen in response to something published in the election
pamphlet in the past. Ms. Fenumiai did not recall a
challenge in the past.
Co-Chair Neuman asked for an explanation of the changes
between the original legislation and the version passed by
the House State Affairs Committee.
2:27:34 PM
AT EASE
2:27:55 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Lynn answered that a section related to
postage had been deleted from the original bill version. He
explained that originally the bill had specified that the
Division of Elections would take care of absentee ballots
that were mailed without adequate postage. The provision
had been removed, which was reflected in the zero fiscal
note. The remaining issue addressed by the legislation
pertained to what political parties could include in the
pamphlet.
Co-Chair Neuman wondered whether the sponsor asked the
political parties that normally advertised in the pamphlet
if they had recommendations to work out accommodations.
Representative Lynn replied in the negative. He believed
that most political parties would like to gain an advantage
over their opponents. The legislation addressed his belief
that it was inappropriate for candidates or political
parties to publish "hit" pieces in the election pamphlet.
Co-Chair Neuman observed that the backup materials only
included the political pamphlet from the preceding year.
Representative Lynn answered that he only had the pamphlet
from the prior election.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about the basic economics of
producing the election pamphlet. He wondered how much of
the cost of producing advertisement and candidate pages was
covered by a party or candidate and how much was paid for
by the division. Ms. Fenumiai replied that it cost the
division $256,000 to produce the election pamphlet. The
party pages had brought in approximately $2,400 [in 2014].
She did not know the amount of revenue generated by the
candidate pages off hand. She would follow up with the
information.
Vice-Chair Saddler surmised that it was clear that the
Division of Elections was paying for a substantial amount
of the cost associated with the pamphlet.
Representative Pruitt wondered why the goal was to
eliminate party advertising altogether. He wondered about
an option of being allowed to put information in that was
not negative. Representative Lynn answered that what may be
viewed as negative to one person may not be negative to
another. He reasoned that candidates, initiatives, and
judges were all voted for on the ballot; however, political
parties were not.
2:32:13 PM
Representative Pruitt stated that if negativity was in the
eye of the beholder he had a problem with all of the ballot
initiatives and did not believe they should be in the
pamphlet because there were negatives on both sides. He
believed the issue could be micromanaged to the extent that
the pamphlet had to be done away with altogether. He
advised addressing negativity if that was the concern. He
remarked that some of the small parties, such as the
Congress Party, may not have an advertising platform due to
their size. He did not understand why parties should be
penalized. He could identify other items in the pamphlet
that he believed were negative.
Representative Lynn replied that residents voted for
candidates, initiatives, and judges, but not for political
party. He agreed that negativity was in the eye of the
beholder, but he wondered why the advertisements were
included in the pamphlet to begin with.
Representative Pruitt countered that there were still
people who voted by political party. He believed that to
discount that reality would not address reality. He
reasoned that if the concern was the negativity, the
negativity should be addressed. He believed the bill would
penalize all of the political parties by limiting their
exposure.
Representative Lynn answered that people voting strictly
along party lines could identify which party candidates
represented.
2:35:29 PM
Representative Wilson asked why the Division of Elections
was paying anything for the ads. She thought the division
should just charge more. She thought paying $256,000 for
the pamphlet was high. She stated that "if we don't like
what they do, at least get more money out of them." She
asked the division to determine how much it would have to
charge parties and candidates so that the state was not
subsidizing elections.
Representative Edgmon wondered if there was anywhere else
within the election process that was essentially based on
neutrality. He wondered if the pamphlet was the only part
of the election process where a party could pay to publish
a partisan statement.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that Ms. Fenumiai could follow up
later. He relayed that the committee would hear the bill
again in the future; members would have a chance to ask
additional questions.
Representative Lynn summarized that the bill was not about
money. He explained that it did not matter to him whether
the statements by political parties were free or cost $1
million per page; it was not the point of the legislation.
He stressed that political party advertisements did not
belong in the election pamphlet. He believed the election
pamphlet was a place for candidate and initiative
statements; it should be kept as pure as possible.
HB 13 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.