Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/07/2002 09:51 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 363(STA)
"An Act relating to communications and elections, to reporting
of contributions and expenditures, and to campaign misconduct
in the second degree; relating to disclosure by individuals of
contributions to candidates; and providing for an effective
date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT stated that this bill was generated by the
Senate State Affairs Committee and clarifies regulations involving
campaign contributions to candidates and issue-advertising
guidelines for State elections. He noted these issues are also
being addressed at the federal level. He voiced that citizen
concerns about how contributions to candidates and issues could
"influence the outcomes of campaigns" has resulted in a "compelling
interest" to prohibit certain types of issue advertising while
working within the parameters of the United States' constitution
regarding freedom of speech. He mentioned that State regulations
recognize "express advocacy" as advertising that, instead of
educating people about a general issue or public policy, attempts
to influence the outcome of the campaign. He communicated that
State regulations align with the US Senate 1977 McCain-Feingold
Bill, which expanded the definition of express advocacy to include
issue advocacy commercials broadcast within "30 days of a primary
or 60 days before a general election, as those broadcasts could be
recognized as "trying to impact the outcome of the election."
Senator Therriault furthered that this bill would "place some
restrictions on the source of funding that is coming into and
backing that expression." He noted that Section 8, subsection 14 on
page 4, line 18 of this legislation further defines components
within a commercial or communication that would be recognized as
express advocacy by the State.
Senator Therriault explained that Sections 7 and 8 primarily
address issue advertising while Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10
address modifications to the Alaska Public Offices Commission
(APOC) report requirements for campaign donations and expenditures,
specifically the requirements of the "15/5 filing report," which
requires anyone who contributes $500 or more to a candidate to
notify APOC of the contribution within 30 days of its being
contributed. He stated that APOC has determined that the 15/5
ruling is "meaningless" as more recent law limits the maximum
amount a person could contribute to a candidate at $500.
Co-Chair Kelly asked the penalty for failing to file or for filing
late, under the 15/5 regulation.
JOE BALASH, Staff to Gene Therriault, responded that the penalty
for late filing is $50 a day once APOC notification has been
issued.
Co-Chair Kelly asked whether the notification is sent to the
candidate receiving the contribution or to the contributor.
Mr. Balash surmised that both the candidate and the contributor
receive notice.
TAMMY KEMPTON, Regulation of Lobbying, Alaska Public Offices
Commission, Department of Administration, concurred that both the
candidate and the contributor receive notification.
Co-Chair Kelly stated that the 15/5 filing "was somewhat
problematic and a lot of citizens did not understand" their
obligation to report contributions. He asked whether the
elimination of the 15/5 penalty should be retroactive since the
15/5 regulation is recognized as not being a "a good idea in the
first place," and some citizens could be prosecuted or fined "under
the old law".
Ms. Kempton stated she is "fairly confident" that no one is
currently being fined or prosecuted because of a violation of the
15/5 regulation.
Senator Green asked how the funding sources of political
advertising "published" within 60 days of an election are reported.
Senator Therriault responded that current regulations require
"source" reports to be filed with APOC for advertising expenditure
contributions coordinated with a candidate's campaign, and that
independent expenditure reports include "where the money comes
from" and whether the funding is from "out-of-State" sources or a
wealthy individual expending thousands of dollars.
Senator Green commented that APOC reporting restrictions focus on
the funding sources, not necessarily what the funds are used for.
She shared that candidates are often "surprised by something that
happens out there that you know nothing about either pro or con,
where you think… do I have to take the hit for this contribution."
Co-Chair Kelly asked for clarification as to whether a person who
neglects to file the 15/5 report would be fined $500 a day
beginning on the thirty-first day after the contribution is made or
beginning the day the APOC notification is received.
Ms. Kempton clarified that current law specifies that anyone
contributing $500 to a campaign must report that contribution to
APOC within 30 days. She continued that if APOC finds that a $500
contribution has not been reported, APOC would notify the
contributor, and from that date on, the contributor would be fined
$50 a day until the filing is completed.
Co-Chair Kelly stated that Section 6 in this bill specifies the
non-filing penalty amount to be $500 a day.
Senator Therriault interjected that the $500 fine referred to in
line 14, Section 6 applies to a candidate or group.
Co-Chair Kelly asked if State statute specifies when a penalty
would begin to accrue.
Ms. Kempton stated that APOC has the authorization to levy lower
fines than those specified in regulation, with $500 being the
maximum per day fine. She reiterated that a fine would begin to
accrue after APOC notification is given.
Co-Chair Kelly stressed that statute should clearly define at which
point the levying of fines would begin to accrue. He asked the
sponsor if the addition of this language would be problematic.
Senator Therriault asserted the need to continue allowing APOC to
have the flexibility to adjust the level of fines according to the
circumstances.
Co-Chair Kelly assured that APOC's flexibility in determining the
amount of fines would not be affected by the addition of language
such as "delinquency continues after notification by APOC."
Ms. Kempton spoke to the need to clarify current regulations.
Senator Therriault suggested that the Senate Rules Committee might
need to address the addition of this language; however, there is
sufficient time to do that before the Legislative session adjourns.
Co-Chair Kelly recommended that penalty clarification be included
in this legislation.
Senator Leman asked whether anyone has ever been convicted of
campaign misconduct in the second degree, which is specified by
State statute as a class B misdemeanor.
Ms. Kempton stated she is not aware of any such conviction.
Senator Leman asked the penalty amount levied to someone convicted
of this offense.
Ms. Kempton responded that a $1,000 fine could be levied along with
jail sentencing of up to one year.
Senator Leman clarified this might be the penalty for neglecting to
include the language "paid for by" in an advertising message.
Ms. Kempton concurred.
Senator Leman asked if APOC has ever pursued this course of action
for this violation.
Ms. Kempton replied that APOC has not.
Co-Chair Kelly stated that although APOC has recommended against
this course of action, there have been instances in which the
Department of Law pursued people according to these statutes. He
opined that the penalty for not including "paid for by" in an
advertising message is "silly." He complimented APOC for its
discretion in invoking penalties on various APOC violations as some
of the laws "are absurd."
CHIP WAGONER informed the Committee that APOC had charged a pro-
life organization he represented of express advocacy violations for
distributing a postcard mailing during a local election. He stated
that the postcard had "merely presented information" stating that a
certain candidate "had as his campaign manager, the head of the
Juneau Pro-Choice Coalition." He stated the message did not
recommend nor encourage people "to vote for, vote against or
support or oppose" the candidate. He stated that even though the
organization was not fined; APOC held them to be in violation. He
stated that he "is not sure this bill is a vast improvement" as "a
bright line test" to further define express advocacy.
Mr. Wagoner suggested that Section 8, subsection 16 be expanded to
include language regarding "imparting of information, so that what
happened to his client does not happen to anyone else."
Senator Therriault stated APOC has acknowledged that the proposed
language in this legislation would assist in establishing some
definite "bright lines" in determining whether express advocacy or
the influencing of an election is occurring. He stated that both
APOC and the Alaska Court System support the establishment of "a
definite line."
Senator Wilken moved "to report Senate Bill 363 from Committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes."
There being no objections, CS SB 363 (STA) reported from Committee
with a new fiscal note dated May 6, 2002 in the amount of $5,000
from the Department of Administration, and a previous zero fiscal
note dated April 22, 2002 from the Division of Elections, Office of
the Lieutenant Governor.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|