Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
03/12/2013 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB127 | |
| HJR8 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 127 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HJR 8-AMEND U.S. CONST. RE CAMPAIGN MONEY
9:29:08 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the final order of business was
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 8, Urging the
United States Congress and the President of the United States to
work to amend the Constitution of the United States to prohibit
corporations, unions, and other organizations from making
unlimited independent expenditures supporting or opposing
candidates for public office.
9:29:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for SSHJR 8, Version 28-LS0424/C, Bullard,
3/11/13, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version C
was before the committee.
9:30:05 AM
CHAIR LYNN reviewed the changes incorporated in Version C. The
first change was to replace the word "large" with "unlimited"
when preceding the word "contributions". The next change was to
delete language from the sponsor substitute, on page 2, lines 1-
5. The last change was to add two "whereas" clauses, which are
found on page 2, lines 1-6.
9:31:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor,
presented HJR 8. He explained that the proposed legislation is
a response to Citizens United, a [U.S.] Supreme Court decision a
couple years ago, which allowed environmental groups,
corporations, unions, and "all sorts of special interest groups"
to make unlimited [campaign] contributions. He said the groups
have to list whether the money they contribute is in support of
or in opposition to a candidate, and 80 percent of the
contributions are listed as being made in opposition to a
candidate. Representative Gara said the statements made in
opposition to candidates are negative and often untrue. He said
these large groups, including foreign groups, are influencing
elections. He related that in 2008, before Citizens United,
independent expenditures on the national level totaled $150
million; for the most recent Presidential Election in 2012,
independent expenditures totaled over one billion dollars - a
seven-fold increase. He said the airways have been flooded with
negative advertisements.
CHAIR LYNN remarked that what is negative for one candidate can
be positive for another.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA indicated that he would not like certain
negative statements made about his opponent, even if those
statements benefitted his own campaign.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said the question is: Do we want money to
flood out the best ideas? He said [false] negative advertising
aired or printed just days before an election gives no time for
the candidate being attacked to respond, and "all of a sudden
the election gets dictated and the issues get dictated by
outside groups, not by the candidates who are running against
each other.
9:34:11 AM
CHAIR LYNN said the House Judiciary Standing Committee in a
previous legislative session debated at length the requirements
for disclosure, and he offered his understanding that there is a
requirement for the top three contributors to be announced not
only in writing at the bottom of the television screen, but also
audibly announced so that someone listening to the television
but not watching it can hear who the contributor is.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA indicated that Alaska and some other states
adopted that requirement, and the subject has been debated by
Congress. He said "they" have found a loophole regarding that
requirement; therefore, it is not working well. In response to
Chair Lynn, he explained that top donors are filtering their
money through local groups. He said that is something that
could be fixed in law, but stated that that is not really the
focus of the proposed joint resolution.
9:36:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to Representative Keller,
indicated that the previous statement he made regarding the
percentage of money focused on negative advertising can be found
among the information he provided in the committee packet; it
has been documented.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA stated that the goal of CSSS HJR 8 is to
obtain a federal Constitutional amendment when three-quarters of
the states ratify the Constitutional amendment put out by
Congress. He said roughly 11 states thus far have told Congress
they want a Constitutional amendment, while 20 other states are
considering resolutions like CSSS HJR 8. He said he anticipates
more states will follow suit.
9:37:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded to a request from the chair to
summarize the purpose of each "whereas" clause in the proposed
joint resolution. He said the first whereas clause talks about
the ability of groups to put unlimited amounts of money into
campaign expenditures; the second whereas clause says Citizens
United was highly contested, but is the law of the land, and
independent expenditures cannot be stopped as long as Citizens
United exists; and the third whereas clause states that
unlimited expenditures skew the political system in favor of
those who have money. He opined that states should have the
right to limit independent expenditures, and he suggested
perhaps there should be limits, such as there are for political
action committees (PACs).
CHAIR LYNN offered his understanding that for campaigns run in
Alaska, individual campaign contributions were limited to $1,000
and are now limited to $500, while PACs were limited to $2,000
and are now limited to $1,000.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA ventured a person could predict what someone
who gives $25 to a campaign would say when asked whether that
$25 gives him/her the same voice in politics as a group that
donates a million dollars.
9:39:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA noted that the fourth whereas clause was
added by the committee.
9:39:30 AM
CHAIR LYNN addressed the fourth whereas clause, on page 2, lines
1-3, which read as follows:
WHEREAS the boards of directors and management of
corporations, unions, and other organizations
permitted to make unlimited independent expenditures
may include individuals who are not citizens of the
United States; and
CHAIR LYNN offered his understanding that the decision to put
forth campaign expenditures rests with the board of directors of
a corporation, and members of many boards are not U.S. citizens.
He opined that only U.S. citizens should be able to contribute
for or against a candidate or proposition, which is why he
proposed this whereas clause. He offered his understanding that
legislative candidates cannot accept campaign contributions from
individuals who are not citizens of the U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA confirmed that is correct. He said a Swiss
corporation, Astra Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, donated money for an
election in the U.S. He remarked, "You can imagine as we have
the pipeline debate that maybe a Chinese company or a Japanese
company or some other company would get involved, and at some
point it's meddling in Alaska politics ... by foreign entities."
9:41:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA directed attention to the fifth whereas
clause, which states that few candidates are able to stand up to
big money, and campaigns are defined by the big donations and
not by what the candidates have to say. In response to Chair
Lynn, he said in close races, if an entity spends millions of
dollars against a candidate in the final days of a political
race, that candidate will probably lose.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said the seventh whereas clause, on page 2,
lines 7-9, says the only way to [reverse the Citizens United
decision] is through a constitutional amendment. He said he is
not a fan of resolutions; however, he said he thinks that if 36
other states back this resolution and send the message to
Congress that "enough is enough," there will be support for this
change in Congress. He noted that U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski
has spoken against "the evils of this kind of money." He said
people want to run their own campaigns and don't mind running
against other candidates who run their own campaign, but he said
he thinks "we all mind when outside groups get involved,
especially with this concept of unlimited expenditures ...."
He said the "Be It Resolved" language urges the U.S. Congress
and the President of the United States to work across party
lines to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed that 95 percent of candidates who
receive the most money get elected. He said, "This issue has
sort of put that problem on steroids." He said in Ohio, people
got so turned off by the election they started ignoring the
television advertisements. He opined, "When you have people
ignoring the political debate, the country is harmed. There
should be positive ads where people actually talk about what
they're going to do."
9:45:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said CSSS HJR 8 will level the playing
field, and he mentioned getting rid of misleading
advertisements.
CHAIR LYNN said he does not think the proposed joint resolution
would eliminate misleading advertisements.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that is true, but the amount of money
being spent on misleading advertising at this point is out of
control, and when a shadow group puts out a misleading
advertising, no one directly is blamed.
9:46:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER mentioned the Alias Addition Acts, which
he said disallowed criticism of U.S. Congress or the President.
He said the resulting resolutions of 1798 defied the federal
government, much like addressing the federal overreach of the
U.S. Supreme Court, which Representative Keller commended
Representative Gara for doing. He stated that the issue then
and now is the First Amendment; the question being asked now is
whether there should be any limits. He said, "I appreciate your
... saying ... and pointing out that we as individuals have
limits on what we and get, and I would look at that personally
as a bigger wrong than what the [U.S.] Supreme Court did." He
told the bill sponsor that this is an interesting issue, but
that he will have "a long ways to go" before he can vote for it.
9:48:39 AM
MIKE FRANK testified in support of HJR 8. He related that he is
an attorney who, in the '90s, drafted an initiative to reform
the state's campaign finance laws via a group called, "Campaign
Finance Reform Now." He relayed that 600-700 signature
gatherers collected over 30,000 signatures to put the initiative
on the ballot; when the legislature at the time passed
legislation with a similar purpose, Lieutenant Governor Fran
Ulmer took the initiative off the ballot. The law that was
passed was subsequently upheld by the Alaska Supreme Court and
by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The law that existed at
the state level until the Citizens United case had a provision
that forbid corporations, unions, and "the shadowy groups that
Representative Gara mentioned" from making independent
expenditures in candidate elections; they were still allowed to
make independent expenditures in the context of ballot
propositions, as was consistent with the jurisprudences
surrounding the First Amendment at the time. Mr. Frank opined
that the law worked well until the Citizens United case, which,
in effect, held that corporations, unions, and other groups
should be allowed to make independent expenditures in candidate
elections. He stated, "Since then, we've seen an explosion of
largely negative, misleading, sometimes false, and generally
uninformative advertising that doesn't help voters make wise
decisions with respect to which candidate to oppose or support."
CHAIR LYNN asked, "Would that fall under freedom of speech?"
MR. FRANK answered that it does according to the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision, which he said "in effect equates money with
freedom of speech." He said that decision dates back to the
Buckley v. Valeo case in 1976; however, after that, in Austin v.
Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Supreme Court decided
that because corporations and unions could aggregate such
immense wealth, they could constitutionally be prohibited from
making independent expenditures. However, that all changed with
the Citizens United case, and he opined it will not get better
without a constitutional amendment to forbid corporations,
unions, and other organizations from making independent
expenditures in the context of elections. He urged the
committee to support HJR 8. He said it is really up to each
state to decide how to best regulate its state and federal
elections of candidates.
9:53:48 AM
KATHARINE VEH testified in support of HJR 8. She recollected
the second commandment in the Holy Bible, regarding graven
images. She related, "So, I'm saying, knowing all about the
separation of church and state, that this guides me." She
posited that currently the U.S. Government is violating the
second commandment, because "an enormous part of being a
respected leader is to tap into the spiritual side of yourself"
and "spend some time in prayer with God," then speak with the
people and make legislative decisions based on that. She
stated, "Money doesn't have anything to do with it." She
clarified that decisions need to be made about money, but money
should not be a primary focus -a graven image - in the political
sphere.
MS. VEH further stated that it is immoral to buy and sell
candidates. She said, "Slavery was already outlawed over a
hundred years ago in the Thirteenth Amendment." She said it is
corrupt to give money to candidates "for favor." She stated,
"Candidates are lined up on the auction block and sold to the
highest bidder, and this is extremely scary." She expressed her
desire for people to like their political leaders again, and she
related that her grandfather served his community and was
respected. She concluded, "This kind of integrity will happen
once a measure of honesty is built into the system through a
constitutional amendment."
9:57:23 AM
CHAIR LYNN said money is an important part of politics; it
facilitates communication of the issues. He stated his support
of CSSS HJR 8, and he asked what the will of the committee was
regarding the proposed joint resolution.
9:58:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON said he favors CSSS HJR 8. He said he
is interested in hearing more from Representative Keller
regarding the First Amendment. He expressed appreciation for
the comments of Mr. Franks regarding Alaska's past legislation
in 1996 to level the playing field. He said he does not think
CSSS HJR 8 would harm freedom of speech, but would make voices
equal by not allowing unlimited contributions. Notwithstanding
that, he said it sounds like more discussion is needed.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER ventured that there would be people to
testify on both sides of this issue, and he said he would not
mind looking for [testifiers who might round out the opinions
heard]. He asked that the committee hold CSSS HJR 8.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS said she would like the bill to be held
"for the same reasons."
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES said she agrees. She opined that the
states should be making the decision rather than a federal
court. She said she would find it helpful to hear more
testimony from "groups that have worked on this issue."
10:00:12 AM
CHAIR LYNN reiterated his strong support, and he announced that
CSSS HJR 8 was held over.