Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/02/2008 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB281 | |
| SB57 | |
| SB209 | |
| SB254 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 209 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 254 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 281 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 281
An Act extending the statute of limitations for the
filing of complaints with the Alaska Public Offices
Commission involving state election campaigns.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that Amendments 1 & 2 had been
WITHDRAWN at a prior meeting.
1:49:08 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3, 25-
LS1115\T.4, Bullard, 4/2/08. Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Gara addressed his comments to the amendment:
Page 1, Line 7, following "Code;", inserting
"requiring the disclosure of the identity of
certain candidates, groups, non group entities,
and persons paying for certain polls mentioning
the name of a political party or the names of
certain candidates for state or municipal
office;".
Page 1, following Line 9: Insert a new bill
section to read: "Section 1. AS 15.13 is amended
by adding a new section to read: Sec. 15.13.092.
Identification of certain polls. All opinion
polls that mention a candidate in an election
occurring under this chapter or that mention a
political party in the 60 days preceding an
election, must clearly identify the name of any
candidate, group, or non-group entity paying for
the poll and any person paying more than $2,000
for the poll, followed by the words "contributed
money to pay for this poll."
Page 1, line 10, deleting "Section 1" and
inserting "Sec. 2".
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 5, Line 3, deleting "sec. 2", inserting "sec.
3". Page 5, Line 6, deleting "sec. 2", inserting
"sec. 3". Page 5, Line 7, deleting "sec. 2",
inserting "sec. 3". Page 5, Line 8, deleting
"sec. 1" & inserting "sec. 2". Page 5, Line 9,
deleting "sec. 1", inserting "sec. 2".
On Page 5, Lines 10, 11 & 12, deleting "sec. 3"
and inserting "sec. 4". Page 5, Lines 12 & 13,
deleting "sec. 6" and inserting "sec. 7". Page 5,
Lines 15, 17 & 18, deleting "sec. 7" and inserting
"sec. 8". Page 5, Lines 19 & 20, deleting "sec.
8" and inserting "sec. 9". Page 5, Line 20,
delete "sec. 8" and insert "sec. 9". Page 5, Lines
22 & 23, delete "sec. 9" and insert "sec. 10".
Page 5, Line 25, delete "sec. 10" and insert "sec.
11". Page 5, Line 27, delete "sec. 11" and insert
"sec. 12".
Page 6, Line 6, deleting "Section 13" and
inserting "Section 14". Page 6, Line 7, deleting
"sec. 14" and inserting "sec. 15".
Representative Hawker was not aware that his name was going
to be included on the amendment.
Representative Gara explained the intent of the amendment to
address attack polls, certain polls in which, the public
never knows who are behind. There are situations the public
might like to know about:
· If there is a candidate behind a poll;
· If there is a Political Action Committee (PAC)
behind the poll; and
· If there is any person [business, labor group,
organization] who is paying more than $2,000 dollars
for the poll.
1:51:35 PM
Co-Chair Meyer thought it would apply to all political
opinion polls. Vice-Chair Stoltze did not know if there was
a legal definition of "polling". He understood the intent
but pointed out that sometimes, there is something that
resembles a poll but in actuality, distributes only factual
or non factual information. The body of law is complicated.
Representative Gara appreciated the question, noting two
solutions. Regardless of the kind of poll, people should
know who is paying for the poll and who is attempting to
affect the outcome of that election. If Alaska Public
Offices Commission (APOC) needed to define the word
"polling", they could do it by regulation. He did not
believe that "poll" needs to be defined any further than it
currently is. Vice-Chair Stoltze wondered if it should be
defined regulatoraly.
1:54:25 PM
Co-Chair Meyer supported the intent of Amendment 3, however,
worried that the change might taint the outcome of the poll.
He asked if disclosure could be placed at the end.
Representative Gara said yes, the amendment provides the
discretion to determine where to insert the information to
the voter.
IVAN MOORE testified via teleconference, spoke in opposition
to Amendment 3. He stated that in principle, he did not
have an issue with the requirement. He but worried about
the mandatory disclosure during the course of the poll,
creating a bias. When the pollster conducts the poll, they
do not know who the client is that is paying for it. When a
surveyor requests to know who is offering the poll, Mr.
Moore's phone number is provided and he can be called
directly. He was worried with his interviewers knowing who
the funder of the poll is because that can introduce a bias.
He suggested amending it to require that a pollster disclose
when asked, instead of it being a requirement that it is
disclosed in every interview. Co-Chair Meyer understood
that.
Mr. Moore reiterated that knowing who the funder is creates
a tendency to do things that make people happy, which the
interviewer could subconsciously segue the information.
2:00:21 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze referenced the professional pollsters
versus those that offer "push-polls". Mr. Moore was
uncomfortable with the suggestion that there are many of the
push polls about and that pollsters routinely engaged in
polls that are intended to influence the outcome of an
election. That has never been his intent during his 20
years in business. Vice-Chair Stoltze asked clarification
regarding the types of polls & the negative tactics used.
2:02:21 PM
Representative Gara was not concerned about who pays for the
candidates but rather worried about "shadow groups"
influencing elections. Mr. Moore argued that he does not
tell his interviewers who pays for the polls but rather has
them call him directly. Representative Gara thought that
Mr. Moore could hire people that would not be influenced.
Mr. Moore disagreed. Representative Gara maintained the
need to disclose to the voters is more important and that
pollsters could find a way to work around their bias.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if it would apply to out of State
pollsters as well. Representative Gara affirmed. He
disclosed that Mr. Moore had worked for him in the past and
that they never did a push poll.
2:04:01 PM
Representative Crawford questioned what happens when there
is an unknown group requesting a poll. Co-Chair Meyer
responded that they would have the option to call Mr. Moore.
Representative Crawford pointed out that the amendment does
not clarify that.
Representative Gara pointed out that if a candidate was
paying, their name would be required; if a political party
was paying, then that would have to be disclosed. He
acknowledged that some of the group/non group entities can
come up with misleading names that the legislation will not
be able to address. The last line clarifies that if there
is any contributor that has placed more than $2,000 dollars
into the poll, their name must be revealed.
2:05:39 PM
Representative Hawker addressed root names that are
intentionally misleading and in which a pollster could ask
an offensive series of poll questions, paid for by a certain
party. He noted that the comments made by Representative
Gara had assuaged his concerns.
Co-Chair Chenault questioned that certain parties would be
responsible for disclosing to Alaska Public Office
Commission (APOC). Representative Gara believed that the
bulk of citizens who receive the polling information would
not research the APOC records and that those records are not
always available until the end of the summer before an
election.
Co-Chair Chenault referenced the language: "Must clearly
identify the name of any group or non group", asking what
difference that could make. Representative Gara agreed it
would be difficult to do everything right. If the candidate
was paying or the political party or corporation or labor
union was paying, it will important to find out that
information. Under those circumstances, it is important to
know the party that is behind it. Co-Chair Chenault
indicated concern with those offering polls for deceptive
motives, yet did not think the amendment addressed the real
concerns.
2:09:28 PM
Representative Hawker responded that from personal
experience, he had utilized a professional pollster and
those dollars were filed with APOC. He attempted to find
out who has been polling with the many calls he receives.
Polling in and of itself is not disclosable; disclosure is
only required when the group and entity requirements that
the Legislature subjects to disclosure. He emphasized that
the need is full disclosure.
2:11:24 PM
MARC HENNENTHAL, testified via teleconference, agreed with
the comments made by Mr. Moore regarding disclosure by the
interviewers regarding who pays for a poll. He mentioned
the published information available regarding interviewer
bias. Providing polls is the business of measuring
behavior, opinions and the like, not advertising or
advocating for a position. He maintained that push polls
are not truly polls and by law, they are required to
indicate who is offering the service.
Mr. Hennenthal pointed out that outside of the political
arena, anyone that polls usually do not want anyone else to
know that they are polling as it provides information to
their competitors. He spoke against projecting the rules of
advertising to the pollsters.
Co-Chair Meyer asked when the pollsters reveal the name of
the requester. Mr. Hennenthal explained that the pollsters
can only provide his phone number as the name for
information on the poll.
2:15:42 PM
Representative Gara disclosed that he had sold a car to Mr.
Hennenthal's son. He asked if legally Mr. Hennenthal would
be required to indicate "paid for by". Mr. Hennenthal
replied that push poll require that but he added that a push
poll is not a real poll. APOC requires a "paid for by"
indication on that type poll.
Representative Gara asked what occurs if it was not a push
poll "paid for" poll & offered by a legislator; APOC
stipulates that information should be made available. Mr.
Hennenthal stated they do not provide that information and
are not required to so and that it could bias the
interviewers on the results of the poll.
Representative Gara thought that if he paid for a poll, it
should be considered a campaign expense and should be
included. He worried that requiring the information for a
push poll could indicate a name not recognized by the person
being polled. Mr. Hennenthal maintained that not every poll
is required to register who pays with APOC.
Representative Gara pointed out that is what the amendment
addresses. He asked what happens if he pays for the poll.
Representative Gara advised that Mr. Hennenthal would have
to provide his own name and that no one would really know
who requested the poll. He added that under the amendment,
the name would need to reveal the information. Mr.
Hennenthal commented that would be reselling it.
Representative Gara said in that case, he was not being
regulated by it and that if it becomes a "real campaign
poll", the poll should not happen unless the money is
provided up front.
2:19:00 PM
Representative Hawker followed the distinction between
advertising and measuring. He agreed that there is an
extreme on each end of the spectrum and worried about
playing around those margins. The amendment clarifies that
it must be disclosed and closes the loophole. Mr.
Hennenthal asked about the confidentiality of the company
that has interest in their opponents. Representative Hawker
clarified that was the point of the amendment and that he
thought it was a good idea. Mr. Hennenthal maintained that
language would discourage anyone adding anything political
to their polls.
2:21:30 PM
Representative Kelly accessed that the conversation affects
poll information. He worried that the action could change
the confidence level on a poll; however, agreed that it is
nice for politicians to know.
2:22:38 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze referenced comments made by
Representative Hawker that opposing candidates do receive
the information and that information does not show-up on the
APOC records, would the amendment change that, making easier
to enforce. Representative Hawker refuted that it would be
an alleged violation. A corporation or some other
organization, polling with political motives, can make the
information public without it being a violation. Vice-Chair
Stoltze acknowledged that he had not indicated his thought
"artfully"; he expected that every poll was on the "level".
2:24:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, SPONSOR, acknowledged that all
polls are inaccurate & bias, admitting the area is of
concern. He requested the amendment be a separate piece of
legislation and offered to work with Committee members
during the interim. He preferred not to incorporate it.
2:26:11 PM
Co-Chair Meyer agreed that the amendment should be
considered on the House Floor. Representative Gara offered
an idea to scale back the amendment to solve those concerns.
He directed his comments to the two pollsters on-line. If
at the end of the polls, the interviewer comments that:
"This poll is paid for by persons interested in the outcome
of this election". The language could add a requirement to
provide a local or toll free phone number, which should not
bias the interviewers and providing the information to
people that are willing to make the call. Mr. Moore agreed
that could resolve his concerns and supported the approach.
Mr. Hennenthal also agreed that it does address the
interviewer bias but that he would maintain his objection to
the change. Government should not be intruding, especially
when 90% of the polling is on sensitive areas. He thought
the change could open a "can of worms".
2:30:30 PM
Representative Gara stressed that the amendment only applies
to a poll that mentions a candidate or political party. Mr.
Hennenthal thought that it could drive up costs. He pointed
out that the poll charges by the length and is measured
accurately, which means certain entities could not be
offering polls as it would be prohibitively expensive.
Representative Gara pointed out that it does resolve the
concern of interviewer bias. Mr. Hennenthal agreed.
2:31:54 PM
Co-Chair Chenault asked for an estimate on a typical
political poll. Mr. Hennenthal responded anywhere from $100
dollars on up. The highest he knew of cost $20,000 dollars
that is rare. Mr. Hennenthal said $5,000 was reasonable;
however, tracking polls are cheaper. Mr. Moore commented
that he does not go as low as $100 dollars, usually charging
between $250 to $500 dollars for only adding a name to a
statewide poll.
2:34:40 PM
Co-Chair Chenault questioned where $2 thousand dollars had
originated and wondered about a group of PAC's presenting a
poll. He asked if a push poll could be considered
influencing an election.
CHRIS ELLINGSON, ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA PUBLIC
OFFICES COMMISSION, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference,
stated that the statute carries a provision alluding to a
push poll and is called "false statements, telephone
polling, and calls to convince". She added that APOC does
not receive many calls on push polls.
2:36:55 PM
Co-Chair Chenault asked if a poll attempting influence an
election was required to be registered by APOC. Ms.
Ellingson stated that they do not have to be registered.
She understood that sometimes polls are not designed for a
candidate or a ballot issue. Sometimes other questions are
added, peripheral to the issue.
Co-Chair Chenault worried about the issue of influencing an
election, which he believed that under the APOC rules, they
are required to be registered. Ms. Ellingson suggested that
the Chairman was addressing communications. There are
definitions in the law about the different types of
communications and depending on how they are structured,
determine if an entity would need to be registered and
identified.
2:39:36 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked for APOC's comments on Amendment 3.
Ms. Ellingson said they had not received that amendment yet.
Vice-Chair Stoltze requested commentary on how the law is
enforced & disclosed for polling procedures and
requirements. Ms. Ellingson responded that polls are
difficult to specifically address because for many years,
they have never been addressed in statute. Between 2002-
2003, there was some definition put into the statutes.
Prior to Campaign Finance Reform, any poll was considered a
contribution. In 1997 with passage of the campaign finance
laws, poll costs became costly and over the limit factor for
contribution. Enforcing is difficult & APOC is usually the
last to find out about the polling. The polls are done
outside the realm of campaign disclosure area; it would be
difficult to administer and get a handle on. The Commission
has addressed how to get something created for determining
the guidelines. She worried about the outside polling
industry.
2:43:53 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze supported the intent of the amendment but
worried about the effect on the bill and the obligations
placed upon APOC.
Representative Gara addressed questions previously asked by
the Committee. He pointed out that the $2 thousand dollar
limit would not apply in most cases. He maintained that
people should know how much the poll costs. He understood
that there could be more demand on the resources but no
monitoring unless someone files a complaint.
2:46:06 PM
Co-Chair Meyer responded that he could accomplish a poll by
hiring an out of state pollster. He asked if the change
would adversely affect the Alaskan polling business.
Representative Gara maintained that if you were a candidate
paying for it, the name would have to be revealed. He did
not know if the law could be enforced on the out of state
pollsters.
Ms. Ellingson noted that if someone does make an independent
expenditure to purchase a poll, there are identification
requirements if related to an Alaskan candidate. If an
individual is paying, they are allowed ten days to file the
expenditure report.
Representative Hawker recommended removing the dollar limit
and making it an absolute full disclosure.
Co-Chair Chenault asked if a Political Action Committee
(PAC) paid for a poll, would the reporting requirements
indicate that. Ms. Ellingson said yes. She pointed out
that PAC and group are used interchangeably in the law.
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual amendment,
changing the words at the end of Amendment #3 (Copy on
File). The amendment would be to Page 1, Line 13, deleting
"contributed money to pay for this poll" and inserting, "
'this poll is paid for by persons interested in the outcome
of this election.' The person conducting the poll must
provide a toll free or local phone number that can be called
to obtain the information in this section."
There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
2:51:16 PM
Representative Hawker acknowledged that the conceptual
amendment makes it better. The intent is to have people
disclose their participation in the campaigning.
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 2
to Amendment #3, removing the $2,000 dollar requirement and
stating that "any person paying for such a poll, would be
wrapped into this web". Representative Gara OBJECTED for
purposes of discussion.
Representative Gara wanted to avoid the pollster's phone
call going on for a long time. He recommended adding
between "$500 - $700 dollars".
Co-Chair Chenault did not think those numbers would make the
call longer or shorter. He thought it would only cost the
person offering the poll extra money.
Representative Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment #3
was adopted.
2:54:39 PM
Representative Lynn commented on the changes made,
suggesting they would be better placed in another piece of
legislation. He stated the important aspect of the bill is
inclusion of the statute of limitations.
Vice-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION to the amended
Amendment #3. Co-Chair Chenault OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Thomas, Crawford, Gara, Hawker, Joule, Kelly,
Meyer
OPPOSED: Stoltze, Nelson, Chenault
Representative Foster was not present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7-3).
2:58:33 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to REPORT CS HB 281(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 281 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
"individual" recommendations and with a new zero note by the
Legislative Affairs Agency, a two new fiscal notes by the
Department of Law and the Department of Administration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|