Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120
03/19/2008 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR37 | |
| HB281 | |
| HB368 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 368 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 37 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 281 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 368 - ETHICS: LEGISLATIVE & GOV/LT GOV 2:25:08 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 368, "An Act modifying the limitations on political fund raising during legislative sessions by candidates for governor or for lieutenant governor, and amending the Legislative Ethics Act to modify the limitation on political fund raising by legislators and legislative employees during legislative sessions, to allow legislators and legislative employees to accept certain gifts from lobbyists within their immediate families, to clarify the Legislative Ethics Act as it relates to legislative volunteers and educational trainees, to reduce the frequency of publication of summaries by the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, to revise procedures and penalties related to the late filing of disclosures required by the Legislative Ethics Act, and to add a definition to that Act." [Before the committee was CSHB 368(STA).] REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, speaking as chair of the House State Affairs Standing Committee, sponsor, noted that HB 368 would allow lobbyists to give gifts to their spouses. 2:27:30 PM MIKE SICA, Staff to Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 368 on behalf of Representative Lynn, chair of the House State Affairs Standing Committee, sponsor. He explained that current law does not allow candidates for the office of governor or lieutenant governor to engage in campaign fund raising during a legislative session held in the capital city. House Bill 368 would in part expand that prohibition to include any municipality in which the legislative session is convened. CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether candidates for federal offices would be affected. MR. SICA answered that neither current law nor the bill address candidates for federal offices. Again, the bill in part merely addresses campaign fund raising by candidates for governor and lieutenant governor when legislative sessions are held outside of the capital city of Juneau. CHAIR RAMRAS asked Representative Lynn why the bill only applies to candidates for governor and lieutenant governor and not to candidates campaigning for federal offices who might also be the governor or lieutenant governor. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN opined that the Alaska State Legislature should only address Alaska issues, not federal issues. he said he is not sure whether it would be constitutional for the state to become involved in telling a candidate for federal office what he/she may or may not do. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled other legislation that attempts to limit campaign fund raising for members of the legislature who are running for federal office. He asked for time to research federal case history with regard to whether doing so would be constitutional. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN pointed out that bills should be discussed on their merit and not in light of current political situations. CHAIR RAMRAS noted that other legislation has been reactive in nature. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL questioned which statutes would best address the changes proposed in HB 368. 2:31:45 PM MR. SICA relayed although Section 1 was not recommended by the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, it was included by the sponsor because he felt that the limitations on campaign fund raising by legislative candidates provided for via Section 2 should also apply to candidates for governor and lieutenant governor. Section 2 of the bill prohibits legislators from campaign fund raising during a legislative session in the municipality in which the legislative session is held. Section 3 amends AS 24.60.080(a) to allow a legislator or legislative employee to accept a gift worth $250 or more in value, in a calendar year, or accept a gift of any monetary value from a lobbyist, an immediate family member of a lobbyist or a person acting on behalf of a lobbyist, if that gift is unconnected with the recipient's legislative status and is from a member of the legislator's or legislative employee's immediate family. He noted that the term "immediate family" is defined in AS 24.60.990(a)(6) as meaning: (A) the spouse or domestic partner of the person; or (B) a parent, child, including a stepchild and an adoptive child, and sibling of a person if the parent, child, or sibling resides with the person, is financially dependent on the person, or shares a substantial financial interest with the person; 2:34:12 PM MR. SICA explained that Sections 4 and 5 merely take the last two sentences in existing in AS 24.60.080(h) and place them into a proposed new subsection (l). This change was proposed by the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics in order to make the language easier to read. Section 6 provides that the publishing of summaries of decisions and advisory opinions shall occur annually, rather than semi-annually. Section 7 provides for a fine of $100 per day, up to a maximum of $2,500, for a willful late filing of a public disclosure. He noted that CSHB 368 uses the term, "may impose", rather than the term, "shall impose" as was used in the original bill; this change gives the ethics committee the discretion to impose that larger fine. He also noted that CSHB 368 no longer contains a proposed definition of the term, "partisan political activity". REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked how the term, "wilful" is defined. MR. SICA said that he did not recall, but surmised that that is something that would be determined by the ethics committee. 2:36:43 PM DENNIS "SKIP" COOK, Co-chair, Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, Alaska State Legislature, informed the committee that he did not have a definition of the term, "willful". However, most problems stem from an inadvertent failure to file a disclosure in a timely fashion rather than knowingly failing to file in a timely fashion. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN added that most violations are due to oversights or errors, and so the concept was that those who willfully refuse to file a disclosure with the APOC could be assessed the higher fine. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked whether, theoretically, she could refuse to file the required disclosures and simply pay the maximum fine every year instead. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, noting that there would be no other consequences for failing to file a disclosure - aside from negative publicity - characterized thumbing one's nose at the law as very inappropriate. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM questioned what would happen if a legislator's religious beliefs mandated that he/she not file a disclosure. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, remarking on the importance of following one's religious beliefs, suggested that perhaps such a person shouldn't be running for office to begin with. 2:40:20 PM MR. COOK relayed that the ethics committee usually makes recommendations for statutory penalties to the legislature, and that penalties are directly assessed by the committee only under this section. He opined that in the case of a legislator who refuses to file reports, the legislature could impose further sanctions. CHAIR RAMRAS noted that AS 24.60.010(1) in part says: Sec. 24.60.010. Legislative findings and purpose. The legislature finds that (1) high moral and ethical standards among public servants in the legislative branch of government are essential to assure the trust, respect, and confidence of the people of this state; CHAIR RAMRAS then remarked on the fact that the governor recently endorsed the lieutenant governor, who is in charge of the Division of Elections, as a candidate for U.S. Congress, and relayed that at some point he would be attempting to address such situations via an amendment. CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 368. 2:44:56 PM LISA MARIOTTI, Staff to Representative Max Gruenberg, Alaska State Legislature, relayed that a memorandum, dated 1/25/08, from Legislative Legal and Research Services that was produced for HB 305 explains that the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), as amended, preempts state law with regard to election to federal office, and that this has been upheld by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in a case addressing a Georgia state law concerning campaign contributions for federal office. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS surmised that although activities of a candidate [for federal office] can not be regulated by state law, the activities of a state official can be regulated. He suggested that a law could be created that prohibits one to run for Congress while one holds an elected state position. MS. MARIOTTI indicated that that is her understanding. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG called members' attention to the dissenting opinion by Judge Hill in the aforementioned case - Teper V. Miller - and noted that it states that [the Georgia state law did] not attempt to regulate the person as a candidate for federal office, but rather as a holder of state office. MS. MARIOTTI, in response to a request, reiterated her comments. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS reiterated his comments, adding that if a person who holds state office is precluded by state law from engaging in activities related to campaigning for federal office, he/she can simply relinquish his/her state position. 2:51:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the concurring opinion by Judge Carnes in the aforementioned case in part read [original punctuation provided along with some formatting changes]: I concur in the Court's holding that O.C.G.A. § 21-5- 35, which has the effect of limiting the time for making contributions to some candidates for federal office, is preempted by the Federal Election Campaign Act, 2 U.S.C. § 431 et seq. ("FECA"). However, I would base that conclusion upon the express language of the preemption clause in the act, 2 U.S.C. § 453, which states unambiguously that the provisions of the act and rules prescribed under it, "supersede and preempt any provision of State law with respect to election to Federal office." (emphasis added) A state law regulating the time in which a category of citizens can accept contributions to run for election to federal office is a "State law with respect to election to Federal office." It is as simple as that. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said this seems to him to pretty well trump the dissenting opinion. He predicted that if either HB 305 or HB 368 were challenged in court, it would rule as the majority did in Teper, and that either bill, if enacted, would likely invite legal challenges in federal court, and then the issue would be resolved, perhaps even by the U. S. Supreme Court. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked whether, if the state cannot regulate an individual citizen, it can prohibit a public office holder from running for two offices at the same time. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his recollection that when Lyndon B. Johnson ran for Vice President, he also ran for re- election to the U.S. Senate. 2:55:31 PM MR. SICA, on the issue of the definition of "a willful violation," noted that a memorandum dated 1/7/08 written by Herman Walker, chair of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, states that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics would make the determination of whether there has been a willful omission or a blatant failure to file the required reports. MR. COOK noted that proposed AS 15.13.072(g) and proposed AS 24.60.031(a)(1) both use the term "solicit or accept", but proposed AS 24.60.031(a)(3) instead uses the term, "expend". REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS opined that it makes sense for the bill to make that distinction. For example, if a special session is called on short notice, a candidate for office could have already arranged for advertising. 2:59:53 PM MR. COOK said he is unsure whether proposed AS 24.60.031(a)(3) is meant to apply to all candidates, or just to those already holding office. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Footnote 28 in the Teper opinion, and offered his understanding that the key difference between [HB 305] and the Georgia law is that the latter prohibits the raising of money anywhere during the time of a special session, whereas HB 305 prohibits fund raising only in the capital city. He opined that the fact that a smaller population will be affected by HB 305 may strengthen the standing of the Alaska law if challenged. He then suggested that a severability clause should be included in the bill. CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that CSHB 368(STA) would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|