Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/09/2001 01:18 PM House JUD
| 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 Number 0160 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the first order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 103(FIN), "An Act relating to election campaigns and legislative ethics." Number 0185 JOE BALASH, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, Senate State Affairs Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature, presented SB 103 on behalf of the sponsor, the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee. Mr. Balash explained that SB 103 is largely a "cleanup bill" to address a couple of conflicts and "gray areas" in the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) and legislative ethics statutes. He said that the APOC section of SB 103 further defines and clarifies that a single candidate can control multiple groups, but that a collection of groups is subject to the same limitations on contributions that would apply to one group. He added that SB 103 makes some changes to the public office expense term (POET) account and POET reserve mechanism, which is eliminated, leaving just the single POET account; transitional language is included to facilitate this change. He also explained that under SB 103, the amount of personal property that's allowed to be carried forward is increased, and the types of property that are allowed to be carried forward are addressed. MR. BALASH further explained that contribution definitions are modified, particularly in the areas of exclusions, professional services, mass mailings by parties, certain poll results, and newsletters to constituents. With regard to the ethics portions of SB 103, he said that the ethics statute breaks down in two places: use of public assets for non-legislative purposes, and use of public assets for political purposes. Under the non- legislative purposes portion, allowances are made for seasonal greeting cards to be prepared and mailed out by legislative staff; transportation of personal computers used primarily for state business; use of photographs; reasonable use of the Internet; solicitation and acceptance of donations for nonpolitical charities; and newsletters on any subject. In addition, the use of offices before and after session is extended to ten days at either end. Under the political purposes portion, allowances are made for legislators to use their photographs and to support or oppose constitutional amendments, although there is a limitation on the use of legislative offices and staff for solicitation of contributions regarding the amendment; it also addresses the use of Juneau legislative offices and provides for an exception to the gift of transportation from one legislator to another. Number 0443 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether the change regarding candidates' registering of multiple groups is necessary. MR. BALASH responded that the APOC currently treats multiple groups in this manner, and the legislation is simply codifying that interpretation. As to the necessity of this change, he said it is up to the legislators' preference whether to include it. CHAIR ROKEBERG, with regard to the elimination of the POET reserve account, asked whether the amounts would stay the same. MR. BALASH confirmed that the amounts would stay the same. CHAIR ROKEBERG said: Right now, ... a House member can receive $10,000 of campaign funds, then has to disburse it to a reserve and an operating account - ... [though] only $5,000 per annum - so that's why the reserve account was established. So, this bill does away with that so we only have to have one account over a two-year cycle. Is that [correct]? MR. BALASH said that is correct. He added that all of the reporting requirements are still in place as to how the funds are used and accounted for, as are the limitations on use of the funds. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked for clarification on the types of accounts and the amounts allowed as addressed by SB 103. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded that SB 103 is doing away with the POET reserve account, leaving in place the operating POET account as well as the campaign account. With this change, the entire $10,000 can be placed in the operational POET account, although those funds have to last for two years. CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that he has set up a savings account for the funds in his POET reserve account, and is now at a loss as to what to do with the interest earned by that account, since interest earned is not specifically addressed in statute. He added that he does report that amount of interest earned as income to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), but is constrained by current statute from using it as personal income. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES opined that interest earned from these accounts is considered a political donation to the legislator's own campaign and needs to be reported as such. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked what becomes of the funds in the POET accounts upon the death of a legislator while in office. He said his interpretation is that the disposition of the accounts would have to follow the statute. Number 0732 BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), testified via teleconference and confirmed that this is also the interpretation held the APOC staff. CHAIR ROKEBERG surmised this meant that the surviving spouse would have to go through the process of disposing of those funds via donations to charities and/or political parties. MS MILES confirmed this and added that the surviving spouse could also choose to donate the funds to state or municipal government agencies. MR. BALASH added that the language regarding the limitation on the disposal of funds from the POET account at the end the term of office, page 3, lines 25-26, is consistent with the current limitations on the POET reserve account mechanism. He noted that one of the limitations is that these funds cannot be pocketed as personal income. Number 0882 SUSIE BARNETT, Ethics Committee Administrator, Select Committee on Legislative Ethics ("Ethics Committee"), Legislative Agencies and Offices, testified via teleconference. Referring to Section 8 on page 11, lines 8-12, she said that she and the chair of the Ethics Committee, Skip Cook, have discussed this section; they recommend that when the gift of transportation from one legislator to another exceeds $250, there should be public disclosure, as is the case with all other gifts. She explained that this public disclosure would follow the same stipulations as the public disclosure of other gifts. MR. BALASH, as background for this provision, explained that this language was added in the Senate Finance Committee (SFIN) by Senator Olson, who had spoke to the difficulties a legislator can have getting around in his particular district. "You can, virtually, only get by with an airplane," Mr. Balash said, and added that Senator Olson found that under the current ethics requirements, even though he owns his own plane, he could not invite somebody to his home and provide the type of hospitality similar to what two legislators from the urban areas of the state could provide to each other. On the topic of including the disclosure requirements as suggested by Ms. Barnett, Mr. Balash said that according to his understanding, there are three options available to the legislature. One is to not require any disclosure; the second would be to disclose to the [Ethics Committee] only; and the third option would be full public disclosure whereby the gift is reported to the [Ethics Committee] and in turn entered into the legislative journal for each body. Mr. Balash noted that disclosure of the gift of travel referred to in Section 8 was not discussed, either during committee hearings or during Senate floor debate. MS. BARNETT added that currently, the sharing of travel expenses between legislators would not have to be disclosed under SB 103 as written; under her suggested change, it would only have to be disclosed if the value exceeds $250. MS. MILES explained that the APOC, at its recent meeting, reviewed SB 103 and identified some areas that will result in administrative costs. With regard to Section 4 on page 5, lines [6-11], she said that this provision makes an amendment to the campaign disclosure law in conformance with a proposed amendment to the legislative ethics law found later in SB 103. The effect of this provision is to permit legislators and legislative staff to use public resources to support or oppose ballot questions regarding constitutional amendments. She pointed out that under current law, public funds can be used to support or oppose ballot questions only if they are specifically appropriated for that purpose by state law or municipal ordinance. She added that administrative regulations allow public officials to communicate on ballot question issues, as long as the communication is made in the usual and customary performance of the official's duties. She noted that this has been interpreted to mean that legislators can include commentary about proposed constitutional amendment ballot propositions in their constituent mailings, in their discussions before a Rotary Club or chamber of commerce, and so forth. Number 1224 MS. MILES continued, saying that the revision proposed by SB 103 is likely to attract public inquiries and complaints, because the persons on the opposing side of constitutional amendment ballot questions will probably have concerns about the activities of legislators and legislative employees conducting constitutional-amendment ballot-question campaign activities with public funds. She said her overarching comment on this proposed change is that none of the legislators' or legislative employees' activities, with respect to the work done on constitutional amendments, are currently regulated. She added, however, that that could change once [legislators or legislative employees] start actually expending public funds that have not been specifically appropriated for the purpose of supporting or opposing a ballot question issue. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES suggested that the intent of this proposed change is not necessarily to be utilizing a lot of public funds, but rather to allow legislative staff to do some of the activities during their regular workday (as opposed to during their personal time) that are currently done by legislators on ballot propositions. MS. MILES said she believed that under the legislative ethics provision of SB 103, the latter function would be allowed, but under the campaign disclosure section, it simply permits campaign activities. She clarified that [AS 15.13.145] subsection (a)(1)-(3) is referring to state, municipal [and university entities], and that one of the major provisions of campaign finance reform was to restrict public money being spent in campaigns. She added that when public money is spent, it requires some additional public process; for example, when a municipality wishes to spend money to support or oppose building a new school, it must specifically appropriate that money by ordinance. And while SB 103 would not allow legislators to solicit funds for campaign activities, it would allow the legislators and legislative employees to conduct campaign activities related to a ballot proposition question that affects the constitution, and allow for the use of general funds in that campaign. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES reiterated her comments regarding her interpretation of the intent of SB 103. She asked what the current procedure is when legislators and staff want to work on constitutional amendment ballot questions, and where the funding for those activities currently comes from. MS. MILES explained that the legislature works on these issues in its routine and normal way, up until the point where they actually become ballot issues; once the question is placed on the ballot, anyone can form a valid proposition group, which is the least regulated of any group. Such a group can take unlimited contributions from unlimited areas; the group simply has to disclose everything. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she never believed that it was ethical for legislators to be a part of that, or able to spend any money on that at all. MS. MILES mentioned constitutional amendments relating to the permanent fund dividend (PFD) and wolf hunting that became ballot questions, as examples. Number 1502 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, with regard to the way SB 103 is currently written, asked whether it is correct to say that a legislator is permitted to use his/her office, for example, to set up a phone bank to make calls in opposition or support of a constitutional amendment. MR. BALASH said that is correct, although he added that this did not extend to initiatives because the use has to be permitted under AS 24.60.030(a)(5)(G), which speaks directly to constitutional amendments only. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, for the record, said: I'm going to be offering an amendment to delete this section of the bill; it is very troubling to me that we cross that line. I see a very sharp division between our role as legislators in putting constitutional amendments on the ballot - or opposing constitutional amendments - and then once that amendment has, in effect, passed the legislature, our role is done. We should be done with that amendment. We can talk about it in the normal context that we talk about bills with constituents, but I think for us to be actively out soliciting support or opposition for a proposition crosses a line that we ought not cross. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether legislators are allowed to use state resources to campaign for or against ballot initiatives. MS. MILES said no, and added that [activity regarding] other ballot questions that are not about a constitutional amendment would not be permitted. CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that he found this to be incongruous because the citizens' right to change or amend a law via ballot initiative is similar to the actions taken by the legislature in its normal course of business. He added, "That's the nature of a change of the law, and therefore I think the legislature deserves and has the right to be intimately involved in that discussion, using everything that they have [in] their power ...." Number 1628 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, on a prior point, surmised that the resources the legislature has at its disposal include telephones; printing offices; and for some legislators, such as those in the majority, the ability to travel. There also are other advantages whereby state funds can be expended in support or opposition of a proposition. To be clear, he continued: We have a very distinct constitutional role in advancing or opposing constitutional amendments, and it is entirely appropriate for us, as long as we're within the process of acting as legislators on that constitutional amendment, to agitate for or against that proposition. But once it passes the legislature, our role as legislators is finished. I think we have every ability and every right as independent citizens to speak to or against a constitutional amendment, but that's very distinct [from] us bringing the power of government that we have through our offices to bear on an amendment. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed that [legislators] only have one responsibility for using state funds: to do their job as legislators. She therefore surmised that this legislation is an attempt to expand that responsibility. She said she found that troubling because no matter how [legislators] proceed, it is going to be misunderstood by the public. To counter the point that the legislator's job is done once an issue is placed on the ballot, she said that her constituents look to her for guidance, and because she has the obligation to provide assistance, she offers them her outlook on the issue. She added that one of the things she has found regarding constitutional amendments and ballot issues is that from her perspective, it's a free-for-all: there are no rules regarding honesty in advertising, and so the public becomes victimized in this whole process, which can result in wrong decisions being made for the long term. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she disagreed with the practice of using state resources for anything other than their legislative responsibility, and that she did not believe that legislators should lean on staff to gather votes. But, she added, it is certainly appropriate for a legislator to defend the position that he/she took on a constitutional amendment question. For example, if she were to travel on state business and give a presentation to people, if someone asked her for her opinion on a constitutional amendment, she would freely speak to it. She opined, however, that it would not be ethical for legislators to join groups that raise funds to support or oppose constitutional amendments. MS. MILES, after acknowledging that it is the legislature that sets policy and that the APOC merely administers the laws it is given, said that the APOC did not want to interfere with the legislature's deliberation of this proposed policy change. Number 1897 CHAIR ROKEBERG recalled that during the time period surrounding the "advisory vote," the standards put forth by the APOC were very limiting regarding legislators' ability to speak out on that issue. He opined that legislators who were opposed to the issue "didn't feel constrained to abide by those guidelines," whereas legislators in support of the issue did abide by the guidelines. MS. MILES referred to Section 5 [sub-subparagraph (iv)] on page 6 [lines 6-9], and said that this amends the definition of contribution to exclude polls that are limited to issues and do not name a candidate, unless the poll was requested by or designed primarily to benefit the candidate or was provided by a person required to register as a lobbyist. She explained that under current law, when a campaign pays for a poll, the expenditure is disclosed as a campaign expense. If someone else pays for a poll, she continued, and gives the results to a campaign without recompense, then the polling information is currently considered a contribution if the information is intended to influence the outcome of that candidate's election. MS. MILES went on to explain that under the language proposed in SB 103, any person other than lobbyists - including any entities such as associations, corporations, and limited partnerships currently prohibited from masking contributions - could conduct a poll and give the results to a campaign. Even if the information has benefited the campaign, no contribution results if the two conditions exist: one, the poll is about issues and doesn't mention a candidate; and, two, the poll mentions a candidate but wasn't requested by or designed primarily to benefit the candidate. She remarked that this provision of SB 103 will result in administrative costs because the APOC will be required to make judgment calls on the content and basis of polls. She added that polls can be paid for by any person (except lobbyists) or entity, and neither the cost nor the identity would be disclosed to the public. Number 2023 MR. BALASH explained that the language regarding polls was part of the original bill and was included in an attempt to "get our hands around those things" that may or may not have value, and things that may or may not necessarily need to be disclosed. With regard to a poll provided by somebody other than an allowable individual, he asked how value is assigned to that. For example, he asked, if going strictly by the cost of the poll - one that is an issue-based poll and not designed to benefit one candidate or another - and the poll is given to candidate A, who reports it at the full value of its cost, and then the donor also provides it to candidate B in separate race, should candidate B report the donation at the full cost, or half the cost? So, he continued, if the reporting requirement is going to include the value of the poll, one would have to figure out how many individuals were given the poll, divide the cost among those individuals, and then have each of them report it. He added that should the poll then be given to someone else, the reporting problem would be compounded, and could lead to reporting inconsistencies. Hence, rather than include in the definition of what needs to be reported specific formulas to determine the value of polls, he said it was simply decided to exclude [polls] altogether - except those types described in SB 103. MS. MILES, on another point, referred to Section 6 on page 7, lines 1-[5], and said this provides that communications with a value of $500 or less from corporations, labor organizations, or business or trade associations are not expenditures. She explained that under current administrative regulations, it is not considered a contribution for these entities to communicate with their members, employees, or families on any subject, as long as it is in a format that the entity has used in the past to communicate with those people, and as long as it does not solicit contributions on behalf of a candidate or ballot question. For this reason, she relayed that the APOC is unclear as to why this provision of SB 103 is rewriting current law. She asked if the intent is to limit the communication to $500 a year, or per election, or per communication. She also commented that since no reporting is required regarding "these non- expenditures," either under current law or under SB 103, the public would have no way of knowing about them; if the intent of [limiting] these non-expenditures is to allow these groups to actually solicit funds on behalf of candidates, however, it is likely to result in public inquiries. MR. BALASH explained that this provision was added by the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee; as he understood it, the intention was to extend to corporations, nonprofits, labor organizations, and so forth the same right to communicate freely, and to make independent expenditures, as any other individual in Alaska has, and also to subject these entities to the same limitations as individual Alaskans have regarding contributions made during a campaign. Number 2283 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN surmised that the intent is to place a limit of $500 a year on these entities. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, on valuation, asked: Assuming that a ten-page "mail-out" costs $5,000 and one column is devoted to a recommended candidate or slate, what is the value of that one column? REPRESENTATIVE OGAN suggested it could be calculated by using a percentage of the column inches. MR. BALASH acknowledged that there are difficulties in approaching the topic of valuation, but he said he believes that the APOC has the regulatory ability to set standards for determining value. MS. MILES explained that this provision of SB 103 would overwrite the current APOC regulation that permits these various kinds of communications (as long as they don't solicit) in unlimited amounts, and will result in a $500 limit to these communications. She also pointed out that nothing in this provision speaks to independent expenditure activity such as when a candidate calls up ARCO and says, "Can you please send out a communication to your people." It also could be a coordinated activity because there is nothing that says it must be independent. This provision of SB 103, she said, would overwrite the ability of all these organizations to communicate freely with their members, and the provision relates to expenditures, which, as she understands, could raise constitutional issues. She added that the APOC would rather the current situation prevail with regard to communications, instead of imposing limits. Number 2419 MR. BALASH, in response to a question, said that Senator Donley proposed this language. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that he would be offering an amendment later in the meeting to delete this language from SB 103. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that she did not understand what this language is trying to do. CHAIR ROKEBERG noted also that he did not understand what the purpose of this language is. "If it's already allowed, why are we trying to put a value on it," he added. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that the groups listed in this [sub- subparagraph (ii)] cannot currently make any contributions, period. CHAIR ROKEBERG explained that these communications are considered expenditures for the purpose of these entities' own records. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES surmised that there is no difference; they are spending money via the communications and thus making a contribution. CHAIR ROKEBERG noted, however, that currently these entities can endorse candidates in their newsletters. TAPE 01-59, SIDE B Number 2475 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES suggested that if these entities endorse a list of candidates in their newsletter, then she considers it to be a campaign contribution. She offered that since entities are already allowed unlimited communications, the language is attempting to restrict communications to $500 only; thus, no communications could occur that cost more than that. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said his interpretation is that as long as it is a regular company mail-out (and, for example, in the November mail-out it says "here's our recommended list of candidates or propositions that we support") this is permissible under current regulation, but anything in excess of that would not be permissible. MS. MILES clarified that it would be permissible for the organization to talk to its membership on any subject, including advocating on behalf of candidates, so long as it didn't solicit contributions. She noted that communications wouldn't even have to be in the form of a newsletter; they could instead be in the form of e-mail or "telephone trees." She also confirmed that there are some First Amendment issues involved. Furthermore, in response to questions, she said that the language in this provision of SB 103 does confuse the APOC's responsibilities and in fact may even overwrite the existing regulation. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ then surmised that this language would lead to more regulations, more confusion, possibly more APOC complaints, and more difficulties for candidates who are trying to comply but for reasons beyond their control are unable to. MS. MILES said that Representative Berkowitz's comments express the APOC's concerns very well. CHAIR ROKEBERG, on another point, asked why a candidate's filing fee is not a deductible expenditure. Number 2364 MS. MILES said she has always understood that a filing fee can be listed as a campaign expenditure since it is certainly reasonably related to a person's campaign. She clarified that the language on page 6, lines 29-30, is simply stating that a filing fee cannot be considered an expenditure before filing for office. Paying the filing fee out of campaign funds and then reporting it is not considered a violation, she added. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that she did not believe that the filing fee should be paid for with campaign funds. CHAIR ROKEBERG offered that there is a lot of confusion [surrounding the issue of campaign expenditures], and that the statutes should clarify these points. Chair Rokeberg then asked Ms. Miles to comment on Amendment 1 [22-LS0148\G.1, Cramer, 4/4/01], which read: Page 1, line 1, following "campaigns": Insert ", financial disclosure statements of public officials and legislators," Page 1, following line 2: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Section 1. AS 15.13.030 is amended to read: Sec. 15.13.030. Duties of the commission. The commission shall (1) develop and provide all forms for the reports and statements required to be made under this chapter, AS 24.45, and AS 39.50; the commission shall develop and provide a single form to be used for filings of financial disclosure statements by public officials under AS 39.50 and filings of financial disclosure statements by legislators under AS 24.60.200 - 24.60.260; (2) prepare and publish a manual setting out uniform methods of bookkeeping and reporting for use by persons required to make reports and statements under this chapter and otherwise assist candidates, groups, and individuals in complying with the requirements of this chapter; (3) receive and hold open for public inspection reports and statements required to be made under this chapter and, upon request, furnish copies at cost to interested persons; (4) compile and maintain a current list of all filed reports and statements; (5) prepare a summary of each report filed under AS 15.13.110 and make copies of this summary available to interested persons at their actual cost; (6) notify, by registered or certified mail, all persons who are delinquent in filing reports and statements required to be made under this chapter; (7) examine, investigate, and compare all reports, statements, and actions required by this chapter, AS 24.45, and AS 39.50; (8) prepare and publish a biennial report concerning the activities of the commission, the effectiveness of this chapter, its enforcement by the attorney general's office, and recommendations and proposals for change; the commission shall notify the legislature that the report is available; (9) adopt regulations necessary to implement and clarify the provisions of AS 24.45, AS 39.50, and this chapter, subject to the provisions of AS 44.62 (Administrative Procedure Act)." Page 1, line 3: Delete "Section 1" Insert "Sec. 2" Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Number 2228 MS. MILES said that she has seen Amendment 1, and went on to explain that the legislative financial disclosure and the public officials financial disclosure vary in only three ways: income, loans, and gifts. Under legislative financial disclosure, [legislators and staff] aren't required to file disclosure of any gift with the APOC; instead, these disclosures are filed with the Legislative Ethics Committee. With respect to income and loans, she continued, legislators (only) have to report the amount of income if the source of the income or loan has a substantial interest in legislative action. She added that there are only 66 people who file legislative disclosure forms, whereas there are 3,000 people who file the public officials' disclosure statements. She relayed that the changes proposed by Amendment 1 could be instituted without a change to statute, but if the legislature still wishes to institute Amendment 1, the APOC staff suggests that the language should be inserted into AS 39.50 and AS 24.60, instead of the financial disclosure statute - AS 15.13 - as is proposed currently by Amendment 1. MS. MILES also relayed that Nancy Freeman has said that she is willing to work on combining the forms. CHAIR ROKEBERG said that is not correct; according to his information, Ms. Freeman said the law needed to be changed. MS. MILES said, "I don't believe that's true, and she understands that that's not true." Ms. Miles opined that when Ms. Freeman said that the law would need to be changed, she meant that public officials would be required to disclose the amount of income. However, Ms Miles added, that word doesn't really apply to public officials because they're not allowed to work for an outside entity that would have a substantial interest in legislative action. When "you" work for the state, it's very limited what "you" can do, she noted. On the point of instituting Amendment 1, she explained that it would just be a matter of combining forms, particularly since the reporting thresholds are now same for both legislative financial disclosure and public officials. CHAIR ROKEBERG relayed that he found it very inconvenient when he sent in his form to the APOC and it was rejected for being the wrong form. MS. MILES, as the new director of the APOC, said that she disapproved of that type of action; the person handling the form should have simply requested any additional information that was needed in order to finish filling out the correct form. CHAIR ROKEBERG announce that the hearing on SB 103 would be recessed until later in this same meeting. SB 103 - ELECTION CAMPAIGNS AND LEGISLATIVE ETHICS Number 2190 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the committee would continue the hearing on CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 103(FIN), "An Act relating to election campaigns and legislative ethics." Number 2183 CHAIR ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 [text previously provided], which would provide for combining the financial disclosure statements of public officials and legislators into one form. He reminded members that it has been suggested by the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) that the language in Amendment 1 would be more suitably placed in AS 39.50 and AS 24.60, rather than AS 15.13.030. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she is not convinced that it is possible to create a single form for everybody - there will still have to be two forms to accommodate both legislators and public officials. But, she suggested, everything requested only of legislators could be placed on one form. CHAIR ROKEBERG said he thinks that the three sections specific to legislators could be placed on a single form along with the instructions that these sections need only be filled out by legislators. Number 2100 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, with regard to the APOC's suggested change, made a motion to conceptually amend Amendment 1 "to move it where it belongs." There being no objection, the conceptual amendment to Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 2078 CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether there were any objections to Amendment 1, as amended. There being no objection, Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted. Number 2071 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 5, lines 3-5, Delete all materials Number 2056 CHAIR ROKEBERG objected. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that Amendment 2 deletes language which states that campaign signs for elections that have already taken place have no monetary value. CHAIR ROKEBERG, in defense of his objection to Amendment 2, said placing value on campaign signs from elections that have already taken place is a meaningless valuation. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that some signs, particularly the big signs, do have quite a bit of residual value. She added that as a bankruptcy trustee, she herself has sold some of the larger, used signs - from a bankrupt real estate firm - for a considerable amount of money. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, in defense of Amendment 2, added that some of the larger Corex signs (the 4x8 size) can cost $100. He said it is important to acknowledge that campaign signs do have value; he advocated that the status quo be maintained with regard to the treatment and valuation of campaign signs via the adoption of Amendment 2. Number 1920 A roll call vote was taken. Representative Berkowitz voted for Amendment 2. Representatives James, Ogan, Coghill, Meyer, and Rokeberg voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 1-5. Number 1912 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 6, lines 2-9, Delete all materials CHAIR ROKEBERG objected. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that Amendment 3 strikes language that states a contribution does not include two or fewer mass mailings before each election by each political party describing the slate of candidates for election, which may include photographs, biographies, and information about the parties candidates; he opined that this exception to the definition of contribution presents a lot of opportunities to "cook up mischief." It could be a slate of candidates particular to, for example, a House district where there is one Senate candidate and one House candidate, or it could be areawide; the term mass mailings "opens the door" to exceed the contribution limits imposed by campaign finance reform. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES offered that the language regarding mass mailings could simply be made more specific rather than deleting it altogether as is proposed via Amendment 2. She noted that the problem exists in both parties; if they wished to send out something with a slate of their candidates in the general election, then the cost would have to be divided among all the candidates and be counted as a contribution, and if the party had already given the maximum to any individual candidate, then the mass mailing could not be done because the party would not be able to leave that individual candidate out. She said she thinks parties ought to be allowed to send out mass mailings of this sort without the candidates listed having to claim it as a campaign contribution from the party. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ remarked that retention of the language in SB 103 regarding mass mailings would be moving away from the campaign limits imposed on parties. He went on to say: "It looks like 'two or fewer mass mailings' doesn't describe when those mailings can occur. I have been the subject of mass mailings from the other party and, frankly, it seems to me that it's an underhanded way for the opposing candidate to evade responsibility for a message." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that she would be perfectly willing to limit it to one mass mailing prior to the general election. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that the language specifies a party's slate of candidates. Number 1771 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ countered that describing a slate of candidates doesn't prohibit mention of the other party's opposing candidate. "You can say 'Vote for Joe Smith; he's a much better guy than Jane Doe, who's a terrible human being and has done all these atrocious things,'" he added. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that although she is willing to offer an amendment to Amendment 3 that would limit the mass mailings to one, she observed that it would not have the votes to carry. She also noted that she had originally thought the language specified unlimited mass mailings, and since this is not the case, she finds the current language acceptable. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, on a technical point, said that the language regarding mass mailings says, "by each political party"; since there are more than two political parties, he suggested that the language should read "by a political party". He then asked how this provision affects nonpartisan candidates. CHAIR ROKEBERG, on Representative Berkowitz's technical point, opined that the language used is simply a choice of grammar. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, in response to Representative Berkowitz's question, offered that the language would have no effect on nonpartisan candidates because they don't belong to any party that would include them on a slate of candidates in a mass mailing. Number 1630 A roll call vote was taken. Representative Berkowitz voted for Amendment 3. Representatives James, Ogan, Coghill, Meyer, and Rokeberg voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 1-5. Number 1623 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to adopt [Amendment 4A], which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 7, lines 1-5, Delete all materials CHAIR ROKEBERG objected for purposes of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that the provision regarding communications of $500 or less, which would be deleted by [Amendment 4A], is confusing, expensive, and unnecessary. CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that he did not understand [the purpose of] this provision. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER commented that it would be difficult to determine a value for these communications. Number 1473 A roll call vote was taken. Representatives James, Berkowitz, and Rokeberg voted for [Amendment 4A]. Representatives Ogan, Coghill, and Meyer voted against it. Therefore, [Amendment 4A] failed by a vote of 3-3. Number 1462 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4B, such that "per year" would be inserted after "$500 or less" on page 7, line 1. The end result would read: "communications with a value of $500 or less per year". He explained that this would place this allowance for communications on the same par with individuals who are allowed to give $500 or less per year. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, for the record, said: When we passed campaign finance reform, one of the main purposes of the campaign reform was to eliminate the contributions by corporations, labor organizations, unincorporated business and trade associations, and nonprofit corporations. Now we're adding it back in - up to $500 a year. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER mentioned that he thinks it is fine to allow these entities to contribute something with a little monetary value, and that it's to be expected. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ requested clarification that with the provision regarding communications, it would be OK for labor unions, should they so choose, to place 4x8 signs (that cost less than $500) in front of their halls saying, "Dear Members, We Love Ethan Berkowitz!" If so, he said, he sees [this allowance] as being a little bit problematic. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed. CHAIR ROKEBERG offered that if it were simply a matter of issuing an endorsement slate in a newsletter, it would be acceptable; he reminded members that [the APOC] has indicated that this is already permissible under current law. He then indicated that the entire provision in SB 103 regarding communications would get further scrutiny in the House Finance Committee. Number 1299 CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether there were any objections to Conceptual Amendment 4B. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 4B was adopted Number 1286 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to adopt [Amendment 5A], which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 9, line 31, Delete all materials Page 10, lines 1-5, Delete all materials REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that [Amendment 5A] deletes the ability of legislators or legislative staff to work on behalf of a state or federal constitutional amendment. Notwithstanding the previously heard argument that the legislature should continue to be involved in proposed constitutional amendments that originate as legislative resolutions, he pointed out that the language he is attempting to delete also allows involvement in proposed federal constitutional amendments, which, he observed, the legislature has nothing to do with. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she believed that as legislators, they had an obligation to explain their position on issues, whenever possible, to the public. She added, however, that she has a problem with the concept of utilizing governmental resource towards this end. If any governmental resources are used, she continued, they should be very limited. She went on to say that if she were to spend a small portion of her workday in support or opposition of a proposed constitutional amendment, it would be difficult to sort out which portion of her salary, which she indicated was often quite small, is to be cataloged towards that activity. She opined that the allowance for this kind of activity should be a little broader for legislators, but not as broad as this provision of SB 103 is proposing; she said she did not think that legislators should be out campaigning either in support of or opposition to proposed constitutional amendments. On the point brought up by Ms. Miles that legislators are allowed to become part of a group working for or against proposed constitutional amendments, Representative James said she disagrees with the concept and thinks this activity would be "purely unethical." Number 1148 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked whether Representative Berkowitz would consider a friendly amendment [in place of Amendment 5A] to insert "incidental" in front of "use of governmental resources" on page 9, line 31. This would eliminate the appearance and possibility that large amounts of governmental resources could be expended in support of or opposition to proposed constitutional amendments, he explained. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ agreed that the addition of "incidental" to this provision would alleviate some of his concerns, but he cautioned that although he has no qualms that any current legislators will take advantage of this provision in SB 103, he still has concerns that future legislators could misuse this provision. He posited that this is one of the worst provisions in SB 103. Number 0975 A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Meyer and Berkowitz voted for [Amendment 5A]. Representatives Coghill, James, Ogan, and Rokeberg voted against it. Therefore, [Amendment 5A] failed by a vote of 2-4. Number 0960 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to adopt Amendment 5B, to insert "incidental" in front of "use of governmental resources" on page 9, line 31. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to amend Amendment 5B, such that "or federal" would be removed from page 10, line 2. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated she is in favor of the amendment to Amendment 5B. CHAIR ROKEBERG objected to the amendment to Amendment 5B. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew the amendment to Amendment 5B and indicated that he would offer it again, separate from Amendment 5B. Number 0900 CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether there were any objections to Amendment 5B. There being no objection, Amendment 5B was adopted. Number 0895 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to adopt Amendment 5C, which would strike "or federal" from page 10, line 2. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN objected. He remarked that with the addition of the term "incidental", he did not have a problem with activity related to federal constitutional amendments. CHAIR ROKEBERG reminded members that federal constitutional amendments come before the legislature for ratification or rejection; because this is the process, he thinks it is entirely appropriate that legislators gather feedback from their constituents regarding any proposed federal constitutional amendments. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew Amendment 5C. Number 0821 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to adopt Amendment 6, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 5, lines 6-11, Delete all materials CHAIR ROKEBERG commented that this addresses language that Ms. Miles previously expressed concerns over. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ then noted that the language deleted by Amendment 6 was tied to the language regarding the use of governmental resources, and was dependent upon the adoption of Amendment 5A; for this reason, Representative Berkowitz withdrew Amendment 6. Number 0766 CHAIR ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 7, "in the event that a member of the legislature passes away, that his surviving spouse can claim the proceeds of the POET [public office expense term] account, rather than have to dispose of it." REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said that as the legislator with the most recent brush with mortality, he has to declare a conflict. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she opposes Conceptual Amendment 7 because she thinks that the whole concept of putting aside money in the POET account is that it be used for legislative purposes. She added that it seems to her that if the money is not used for legislative purposes, the law already requires that the money be given away. Therefore, in the event of a legislator's death, the surviving spouse should comply with this requirement and give away any money remaining in the POET account. Number 0618 A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Meyer and Rokeberg voted for Conceptual Amendment 7. Representatives Berkowitz, James, Coghill, and Ogan voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 7 failed by a vote of 2-3. Number 0615 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report CSSB 103(FIN), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. Number 0607 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected, and for the record said, "We are retreating from the campaign finance reform with this; there are some important cleanups that are part of it, but I think we've gone too far, and I think we've opened ourselves up for undue criticism by some of the measures we've taken." Number 0600 A roll call vote was taken. Representatives James, Coghill, Meyer, and Rokeberg voted to report CSSB 103(FIN), as amended, out of committee. Representative Berkowitz voted against it. [Representative Ogan was unable to vote on the motion because he attended via teleconference.] Therefore, HCS CSSB 103(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 4-1. Number 0570 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the committee needed to adopt a House Concurrent Resolution to change the title of SB 103. Number 0560 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to adopt the proposed House Concurrent Resolution, version 22-LS0875\A, Cramer, 4/4/01, as a work draft. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Number 0550 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report the proposed House Concurrent Resolution, version 22-LS0875\A, Cramer, 4/4/01, out of committee with individual recommendations. There being no objection, the House Concurrent Resolution [which later became HCR 15] was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee. [HCS CSSB 103(JUD) was reported from committee.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|