Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/27/2001 03:40 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 103-ELECTION CAMPAIGNS AND LEGISLATIVE ETHICS
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said there was a CS prepared for SB 103.
SENATOR PEARCE moved to adopt the State Affairs substitute of SB
103 as a working document. There were no objections.
JOE BALASH, staff for Senator Therriault, explained the following
changes to SB 103.
Section 1 is unchanged incorporating existing practices of counting
multiple groups as a single group for purposes of the contribution
limits.
Section 2 allows thank you advertisements to be included in the
list of allowable expenditures and then makes changes on page 3,
line 20. This language allows the removal of the previous
requirement for a public office expense term (POET) reserve
account. A House candidate may transfer $10,000 and a Senate
candidate may transfer $20,000 to their POET account doing away
with the reserve account altogether. Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC) had no objection to making this change.
Section 3 increases the amount of personal property that may be
kept after an election and makes the necessary changes allowing
candidates to continue to use their bulk mailing permits. It also
allows use of campaign photographs, seasonal greeting cards and
campaign signs after an election.
Section 4, page 5, makes a technical change so this section
correlates with a section that appears later in the bill.
Section 5 clarifies the definition of contribution. In previous
testimony, there was concern expressed about the use of mass
mailings by political parties to promote a slate of candidates for
election. To address this concern, the number of mailings per party
is limited to two or fewer before each election. Thus, a party may
not run a bulk mailing on behalf of a candidate to skirt the
individual contribution limits placed on the candidate and take
advantage of the larger limits placed on parties.
Page 6, line 4, changes the language so an individual who is
required to register as a lobbyist may not provide an issue based
poll that would benefit a particular candidate.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked whether this addressed a concern expressed
by APOC during the February 22, 2001 meeting.
MR. BALASH said it addresses part of their concern.
Section 6 deals with legislative ethics statutes. Page 7, line 13,
makes allowances for the use of state resources. Subsections (F)
through (J) deal with preparation and mailing of seasonal greeting
cards, using state resources to transport personal computers used
on state business, using photographs, reasonable use of the
Internet by a legislator or staff except for election campaign
purposes, and allowing a legislator to solicit, accept or receive
gifts on behalf of recognized, nonpolitical charitable
organizations in a state facility. This last subsection addresses
the annual Betty Fahrenkamp golf tournament held in the capitol
building and makes it clear that the legislature has no objection
to this use of the capitol and state resources.
Page 8 clarifies the concern expressed by Susie Barnett during the
previous hearing, and makes an allowance that prevents the use or
authorized use of state resources for political purposes. The
technical issue she raised was addressed by removing the provision.
Page 8, line 28, (G) deals with use of governmental resources by
legislators or staff to support or oppose a proposed amendment to
the state or federal constitution. The previous version also
allowed them to support or oppose citizen's initiatives or
referendums and has been removed in this draft.
Section 7 repeals the section of statute dealing with the POET
reserve account.
Section 8 is a transitional provision.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether members had any questions for Mr.
Balash.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked about the provisions on page 3, line 20
dealing with transfer of unused campaign funds by state or
municipal candidates.
MR. BALASH said that these funds must be dealt with within a 90-day
period after the election. Campaign expenses and debts may be paid
then funds are transferred to a Public Office Expense Term (POET)
account. Current law allows $5,000 to be put into the POET account
and up to $5,000 per year of the term into a POET reserve account.
This amounts to $10,000 for House members and $20,000 for Senate
members. The amended language does away with the POET reserve
account and limits fund transfers to $10,000 for a House candidate
and $20,000 for a Senate candidate.
Number 1278
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said the dollar amount hasn't changed, it's
just that the reserve account has been eliminated.
To deal with the language in Section 8, amendment #1 was proposed
by Chairman Therriault. On page 9, lines 8-11 following "reserve"
delete all wording and insert "shall transfer those funds to a
public office expense term account before January, 2002." This
makes it clear that if a successful candidate has established a
reserve account, any funds held in that account must be removed and
placed in a POET account by January 1, 2002.
Number 1480
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT moved amendment #1 and there were no objections
so it was adopted.
MR. BALASH reviewed amendment #2 and explained that the language
deals with the use of governmental resources by legislators and
their employees. On page 8, line 31, following "however," insert "a
legislator or legislative employee may not use governmental
resources to solicit contributions for a proposed constitutional
amendment." Lines 1 and 2 on page 9 are removed. Previous language
didn't mention legislators, just their employees.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked for confirmation that government resources
means, "company time, government time, resources and supplying
money plus time."
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that that's correct; while in their
offices, legislators and staff may not solicit contributions to
promote or oppose a constitutional amendment.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said, "Using government resources which also is
inclusive of government time, right?"
SENATOR HALFORD asked whether that was of the legislator or the
staff.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said both.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that the legislator comes and goes from
the office while the legislative staff works regular hours.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said he understands that but that (indisc).
SENATOR HALFORD agrees on employees but isn't sure about
legislators.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said it is simply a prohibition on soliciting
funds but a legislator could still work with their staff. "If you
were the legislator that proposed the constitutional amendment,
you'd be the one that has the files on how the language was shaped.
You could deal with your staff on gathering information to answer
questions, get information out, promote the issue you got on the
ballot but you wouldn't be able to sit at your legislative office
and solicit funds to promote the question."
He then moved to adopt the modified language for amendment #2.
There were no objections.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he didn't intend to move amendment #3 at
this time. He asked for other amendments.
SENATOR PEARCE asked whether Brooke Miles would be available for
questions because she had a question that might lead to an
amendment.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that Brooke Miles and Susie Barnett were
on line.
SENATOR PEARCE referred to page 2, line 30 through page 3, line 8,
that speaks to ways to distribute unused campaign contributions for
candidates for various offices. She asked whether the candidates
referred to on line 1, 3, 5 and 7 meant "that is what the person
was a candidate for when he or she was elected to the position for
which they were raising the money, or is it what they become a
candidate for?"
MS. MILES said the commission's interpretation is what the
candidate ran for. Thus, a candidate for governor, with a $50,000
surplus, could retain those monies in an account.
SENATOR PEARCE asked if her interpretation was correct. If she ran
for senator and had $10,000 left at the end of her successful
campaign, she could transfer that to another senate race.
MS. MILES said she could transfer that amount to a future campaign
account because she had run as a senator. However, that doesn't
mean that account has to be used for another senate campaign, it
could be used for a different office.
SENATOR PEARCE confirmed that the $10,000 limit was for a senate
candidate.
MS. MILES said that was correct.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT confirmed with Susie Barnett that the language
she objected to in the previous hearing was now acceptable.
SUSIE BARNETT, Legislative Ethics Administrator, said that deleting
the subsection on Internet use concerning campaign use solved the
problem and kept the common sense approach to Internet use outlined
earlier in the bill. She complemented the Chair in saying the
prohibition from soliciting a constitutional amendment is now very
clear.
SENATOR PHILLIPS was concerned with page 4, line 13, because it
doubled the amount of personal property that could be retained
after an election. He thinks the current $2,500 figure is adequate.
He proposed amendment #3 keeping the figure for retained personal
property, exclusive of a computer and printer, at $2,500.
SENATOR PEARCE objected to the amendment.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said the figure was exclusive of computers.
SENATOR HALFORD asked whether computers included printers and phone
systems.
MS. MILES said that computer peripherals would be included in the
system but not a phone system.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for additional discussion on amendment 3.
SENATOR DAVIS asked Senator Phillips to speak to his amendment.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said he realized that he was speaking for himself
but he doesn't need more than $2,500.
SENATOR PEARCE pointed out that it was $2,500 in personal property
and not cash.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said he doesn't need more than that amount left
over after a campaign.
SENATOR DAVIS said she just wanted to hear his rationale.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said his rationale is that $2,500 is adequate for
himself whether it is for anyone else at the table or not. His last
election cost just $12,000.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT called for a roll call on amendment #3. The
amendment failed 1 to 4 with Senator Phillips voting yea and
Senators Davis, Halford, Pearce and Chairman Therriault voting nay.
SENATOR PEARCE made a motion to move CS SB 103 (STA) and the
accompanying fiscal note from committee with individual
recommendations.
Number 1999
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said the next order of business was SB 102 and
he was the prime sponsor. His staff introduced the bill.
HOLLY MORRIS, staff to Senator Therriault, said that although
federal law requires that an applicant supply a social security
number on a driver's license application, SB 102 removes the social
security number from the face of those licenses. The bill also
places into statute a policy currently followed by the Division of
Motor Vehicles (DMV) allowing individuals with no social security
number the opportunity to obtain a license. They must sign a sworn
affidavit stating that they do not have a social security number
when they submit their application. Previously, an applicant with
no social security number was denied a driver's license.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said there is an exception from obtaining a social
security number for personal or religious convictions. He's aware
of this because he's worked with several people in his district in
this situation.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether they were able to obtain a
driver's license.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said they were.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that that's what was said in the sponsor
statement. It's been policy for DMV to issue licenses if a sworn
affidavit is submitted in lieu of a social security number.
SENATOR DAVIS asked whether removing the social security number
from the face of a driver's license would preclude businesses from
asking for the social security card for identification purposes.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said no, but that isn't the issue at hand. This
bill simply removes the social security number from the face of the
license. Identity theft is becoming more a problem and the social
security number is a key to this theft. Making the number less
accessible should help deal with this growing problem.
Number 262
CHUCK HOSAK, Division of Motor Vehicles Deputy Director, said that
Section 1 of the bill puts current administrative policy into
statute. Federal law requires that a social security number be
listed on a driver's license application. Six months ago they
received a new federal interpretation of the child support law
stating that a sworn affidavit in place of a social security number
was acceptable. This process was instituted in practice in January
so forms are currently available to those individuals without
social security numbers and who were previously unable to obtain a
driver's license.
Section 2 deals with display of the social security number on the
license. Up to now, display of the number on a non-commercial
license has been optional. Individuals simply needed to request
that this information be suppressed and it wouldn't be printed on a
non-commercial license. Since this capability is currently an
option, there won't be any difficulty for DMV to routinely suppress
the printing of the social security number if this bill passes.
Since the changes this bill would institute are already options,
the bill has a zero fiscal note.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT explained that Section 3 deals with
applicability. Drivers need not apply for a new license before
their current license is due for renewal.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked whether an individual could have their
social security number removed from their license immediately and
not wait for the renewal date.
MR. HOSAK said they could come in and get a duplicate license
without the social security number printed. They would be expected
to pay a duplicate license fee of $10.00.
DEL SMITH, Department of Public Safety Deputy Commissioner, said
that he has testified on this matter previously and that law
enforcement personnel across the state aren't enthusiastic about
the removal of the social security number from driver's licenses.
He does realize, however, that the numbers are readily available
from the DMV database if the need arises. Although an individual's
identification number that is listed on the license is used to
access personal information, the social security number is used to
help pare out duplicate names. They are pleased that this
information will still be available for law enforcement purposes so
the overall effect should be slight.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said there was no proposed CS and the bill had
a zero fiscal note. He asked whether there were any amendments to
the wording and there were none.
He asked for a motion.
SENATOR PHILLIPS made a motion to move SB 102 with its zero fiscal
note to the next committee of referral. There were no objections.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|