Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
03/01/2022 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HJR29 | |
| SB71 | |
| HB234 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 234 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 234-POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
4:05:05 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 234, "An Act relating to political
contributions; and providing for an effective date." [Before
the committee was Version I, adopted as the working draft on
2/1/22.]
4:06:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN announced that Amendment 1 and Amendment 2
would not be offered.
4:06:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 3, [labeled 32-
LS1197\I.9, Bullard, 2/14/22], which read as follows:
Page 2, lines 18 - 19:
Delete "Beginning in the first quarter of
calendar year 2032 and every 10 years thereafter"
Insert "In the first quarter of each year"
Page 2, line 21:
Delete "10-year period "
Insert "year"
Page 2, line 22, following "increment.":
Insert "The adjustment takes effect May 1 of each
year."
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of
discussion.
4:07:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked:
I value the discussion and conversation that we did on
a previous bill, which had this same amendment, and I
thought the work compromise that we came to together
on that was probably more preferable than the language
here but as this was offered some time ago, there
hasn't been an opportunity to adjust the language
there, but certainly wouldn't oppose doing that.
4:07:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CALVIN SCHRAGE, Alaska State Legislature, opined
that adjusting the contribution limits annually could cause
additional confusion and artificially inflate the contribution
limit. He expressed his opposition to Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN agreed with the bill sponsor. He believed
that the public would be better served by adjusting the
contribution limits at the same time as redistricting so that
changes occurred simultaneously. He stated his opposition to
Amendment 3.
4:09:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that without Amendment 3, the bill
would effectively lack inflation proofing. He believed that if
the 10-year timeframe was maintained, a future legislature would
find itself in the same predicament.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his conflicting feelings. He
explained that as a "policy vacuum," he preferred annual
inflation adjustment; however, from a systems management
perspective, he was compelled by the argument that adjusting
contribution limits was a large recurring change that should
coincide with the redistricting cycle for consistency on a
decadal basis.
4:13:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN spoke of natural cycles that occur on a
two-year, four-year, and ten-year basis. He suggested selecting
a cycle with a shorter cadence than ten years to negate some of
the concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE pointed out that if the legislature chose
not to limit freedom of speech by means of political
contribution, inflation wouldn't be an issue in regard to this
matter.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said, "Sounds like that's an endorsement of
no contribution limits at all."
4:14:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR reflected on increasing the minimum wage,
which included a CPI adjustment. She pointed out that the high
inflation at present was an unusual circumstance related to the
pandemic and the supply chain disruption, which was causing the
high demand.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY pointed out that some people felt their
speech was limited by their income, as they could not donate as
much as a wealthy person.
4:16:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that the days of low inflation
were done unless the U.S. decided to overhaul its entire
financial system. He stated that without inflation adjustments,
the contribution limits would decrease over time, which would
eventually lead to intervention by the courts.
4:17:48 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and
Eastman voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 3.
Representatives Tarr, Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 3-4.
4:18:21 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 4, [labeled 32-
LS1197\I.10, Bullard, 2/21/22], which read:
Page 1, line 6:
Delete "$1,000 [$500] per year"
Insert "$2,000 each campaign period [$500 PER
YEAR]"
Page 1, line 7, following the second occurrence of
"candidate,":
Insert "or"
Page 1, lines 8 - 9:
Delete ", or to a group that is not a political
party"
Insert "[, OR TO A GROUP THAT IS NOT A POLITICAL
PARTY]"
Page 1, line 10, following "party":
Insert "or other group"
Page 1, lines 13 - 14:
Delete "$2,000 [$1,000] per year
(1)"
Insert "(1) $4,000 each campaign period [$1,000
PER YEAR
(1)]"
Page 2, line 1, following "(2)":
Insert "$5,000 each year"
Page 2, line 4:
Delete "$2,000 [$1,000] a year"
Insert "(1) $4,000 each campaign period [$1,000
A YEAR]"
Page 2, line 5, following the second occurrence of
"candidate,":
Insert "or"
Page 2, line 6, following "candidate":
Delete ", to a group,"
Insert ";
(2) $5,000 each year [,] to a group [,]"
Page 2, lines 11 - 12:
Delete "$2,000 [$1,000] per year"
Insert "$4,000 each campaign period [$1,000 PER
YEAR]"
Page 2, line 13:
Delete "$4,000 [$2,000] per year"
Insert "$8,000 each campaign period [$2,000 PER
YEAR]"
Page 2, line 18:
Delete "2032"
Insert "2031"
Page 2, following line 22:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 6. AS 15.13.110(i) is amended to read:
(i) During a campaign period, the commission may
not change the manner or format in which reports
required of a candidate under this chapter must be
filed. [IN THIS SUBSECTION, "CAMPAIGN PERIOD" MEANS
THE PERIOD BEGINNING ON THE DATE THAT A CANDIDATE
BECOMES ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
UNDER THIS CHAPTER AND ENDING ON THE DATE THAT A FINAL
REPORT FOR THAT SAME CAMPAIGN MUST BE FILED.]
* Sec. 7. AS 15.13.400 is amended by adding a new
paragraph to read:
(20) "campaign period" means the period
beginning on the date that a candidate becomes
eligible to receive campaign contributions under this
chapter and ending on the date that a final report for
that same campaign must be filed."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:18:52 PM
ERIK GUNDERSON, Staff, Representative Calvin Schrage, Alaska
State Legislature, explained that Amendment 4 would increase the
contribution limit and implement per-campaign period limits, as
opposed to annual limits. The amendment would also change the
inflation adjustment date to begin 2031 and every 10 years
thereafter. Additionally, Amendment 4 defined "campaign period"
and noted that the Alaska Political Offices Commission (APOC)
may not change the manner or format in which reports were
required of candidates during the campaign cycle.
4:21:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the impact on future
campaign account provisions.
MR. GUNDERSON said the changes in Amendment 4 would not impact
the current status of future campaign accounts.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the benefits of redefining
a "campaign period."
MR. GUNDERSON recalled the courts highlighting a barrier to
entry for challengers that run for office, as most challengers
file during an election year whereas incumbents typically
fundraise year-round. He believed that a per-campaign cycle
would place challengers and incumbents on the same playing field
with the same limits regardless of when they enter the race.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how APOC would interpret the
proposed language on Page 3, lines 5-7, of Amendment 4.
4:23:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE deferred to APOC.
4:25:05 PM
TOM LUCAS, Alaska Public Offices Commission, asked
Representative Eastman to restate the question.
4:25:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN restated the question, asking whether the
language on page 3, lines 5-7, of Amendment 3 would interfere
with the uniformity of campaign periods.
MR. LUCAS understood that the campaign period could be different
for each candidate, as the campaign period would begin on the
date a letter of intent was filed. Regardless of the number of
days in each individual candidate's campaign period, the
contribution limit would be the same.
4:27:34 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:28:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that under current
statute, there was a limited period of time within which the
candidate was allowed to collect contributions.
MR. LUCAS confirmed.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked what that period of time was.
MR. LUCAS answered 18 months prior to the election.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN remarked:
It doesn't increase the amount of contributions
available it just gets to the period of time within
which I can accept contributions and that actually
isn't just driven by when I file my letter of intent,
it's also by the statute that limits the period within
which I can collect contributions.
MR. LUCAS confirmed.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that the window for
collecting contributions was 18 months before the election,
which was somewhat further limited by when the candidate filed a
letter of intent. He reiterated that in no event could that
period be longer than 18 months. He asked if that was correct.
MR. LUCAS confirmed.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said it didn't get much clearer: the
campaign period was the 18-month period limited by the filing
date. He believed that the purpose of defining "campaign
period" was to provide that clarity.
4:30:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested changing the language on page
3, line 6, of Amendment 4 from "a candidate becomes eligible to
receive campaign contributions" to "a candidate becomes eligible
to file for office" to clarify the intent.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR believed that the suggested language would
be problematic because fundraising was allowed prior to filing.
She opined that the existing language in Amendment 4 was clear
and should not be confused by trying to incorporate a reference
to filing for office with the Division of Elections (DOE).
4:32:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN believed that the statement made by
Representative Tarr further proved his point. He shared his
understanding that candidates could fundraise before filing for
office but not before they were eligible to file, which
initiated the 18-month window. He opined that if the campaign
period, by definition, were to begin when a candidate filed for
office, it would be uniform for all candidates in the election
cycle.
4:33:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN read a lengthy statement regarding the
U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission in 2010, as well as McCutcheon v. Federal
Election Commission in 2014. He concluded that the alignment
between the average dividend amount for a two-year period and
the proposed $2,000 campaign period limit on an individual
contribution was a significant factor that should be considered
in looking at the proposed amendment. For that reason, he said
he was in support of Amendment 4 and instituting a $2,000
individual limit.
4:39:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN acknowledged that changing the campaign
period would provide clarity for the public's understanding;
however, he believed it didn't relate to future campaign account
provisions. He pointed out that if a candidate wanted to take
money from a future campaign account, the $4,000 limit wouldn't
apply.
4:41:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN withdrew his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited comments on the bill, as amended.
4:41:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether a different effective date
should be considered.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE deferred to Mr. Gunderson.
4:43:10 PM
MR. GUNDERSON conveyed that with the effective date occurring
after APOC's advisory opinion was implemented, candidates would
not be statutorily required to repay any money they had raised;
however, they couldn't raise any additional funds. He provided
an example in which a candidate raised an aggregate of $2,501
over the past two years, noting that the candidate could not
raise beyond the $2,000 limit, per CSHB 234, Version I, as
amended.
4:43:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether the $501 would need to be
reported and returned.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE shared his understanding that as long as
contributions received to date were in line with APOC's advisory
decision, no donations would need to be returned to donors. He
reiterated that a candidate who received more than $2,000 could
retain those donations, as they were presumably gathered before
the proposed legislation went into effect. He noted that the
candidate in question would not be allowed to receive any
additional funds from those donors.
4:45:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN believed that the explanation provided by
the bill sponsor put a different view on the underlying
legislation, opining that it would effectively benefit incumbent
candidates. He recommended solving the disparity by making the
bill go into effect at the end of the current campaign period.
4:46:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE conceded that the bill would retain a
temporary advantage for incumbents. However, he noted that the
incumbent advantage already existed to a greater degree under
the current system. He pointed out that if the effective date
were to begin at the next campaign period, all candidates would
be subject to APOC's advisory opinion until that time, which was
perceived to lack any true authority by some.
4:48:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN shared his understanding that the majority
of the public supported campaign contribution limits and did not
pay attention to the incremental progress on those issues. He
opined that reinstituting reasonable limits would show the
public that the legislature was responding to their concerns.
4:49:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report CSHB 234, Version 32-
LS1197\I, Bullard, 1/22/22, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 234(STA) was moved from the House
State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB071_ArtsCouncil_SamplePlates_PlateDemand_07Feb2022.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2022 3:00:00 PM |
SB 71 |
| HJR 29 Hearing Request memo.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 29 |
| HJR 29 Version A.PDF |
HSTA 3/1/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 29 |
| SB 71 Fiscal Note EED-ASCA-1-11-2022.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2022 3:00:00 PM |
SB 71 |
| SB 71 Fiscal Note DOA-DMV-1-24-2022.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2022 3:00:00 PM |
SB 71 |
| HJR 29 Sponsor Statement 03.01.2022.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 29 |
| HB 234 Amendment I.10 by Kreiss-Tomkins.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 234 |
| HB 234 Amendment packet with votes - H STA 03.01.22.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 234 |