Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120
03/26/2008 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB355 | |
| HB420 | |
| HB368 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 420 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 368 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 355 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 355 - DISCLOSURE OF CONTRIBUTIONS: INITIATIVES 1:17:53 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 355, "An Act requiring the disclosure of the identity of certain persons, groups, and nongroup entities that expend money in support of or in opposition to ballot initiatives and the aggregate amounts of significant contributions or expenditures made by those persons, groups, and nongroup entities." REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for HB 355, Version 25-LS1263\E, Bullard, 3/20/08, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version E was before the committee. 1:18:45 PM SONIA CHRISTENSEN, Staff to Representative Kyle Johansen, Alaska State Legislature, relayed that two changes were incorporated into Version E. The first change, to Section 3, makes the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) - as opposed to the director of the Division of Elections - responsible for collecting and providing the information outlined therein. She conveyed that the APOC is the more appropriate agency because it is already set up to do what this provision outlines. The second change alters proposed AS 15.13.110(g) so as to make the deadlines consistent with other reporting requirements. CHAIR RAMRAS offered his concern, which centers on the different treatment for disclosure by a candidate and for the ballot initiative process. He explained that when a registered voter applies for office, he/she is immediately considered a candidate unless the person withdraws or is elected. However, for reporting requirements, an initiative isn't considered an entity until the signatures are all collected and the initiative is certified by the lieutenant governor. He asked whether that issue is addressed in Version E. MS. CHRISTENSEN conveyed that Version E does not address his concern. She offered that the sponsor felt that it is important for the public to be made aware of expenditures of $500 or more. CHAIR RAMRAS offered that his intention is to move HB 355. However, he suggested that the sponsor address the initial reporting requirements for ballot proposals either in HB 355 or in future legislation should this bill not pass. He explained the process to start a ballot initiative requires a person to collect 100 signatures of registered voters and to submit a cashier's check in the amount of $100 to the lieutenant governor to have booklets issued. He related his understanding that the ballot initiative is then in the public domain. 1:24:40 PM GAIL FENUMIAI, Director Central Office, Division of Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, explained that Representative Ramras described what the division would consider as an initiative application. She explained that once the application has passed the requirements of statute, it becomes an initiative petition. She said she was not sure if that is the point at which the ballot initiative becomes an entity. She opined that his question is one that is more of a legal nature. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS offered his understanding that the question of when an initiative is an entity is more of a policy call. He further noted that if the legislature wants disclosure during the application process that the legislature can require reporting to disclose and donations or expenditures. CHAIR RAMRAS stated that his reason for objecting to disclosure is to support free speech. He surmised Representative Samuel's concern is to require full disclosure of an initiative, including the application process. 1:27:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, in response to Chair Ramras, noted that he has several amendments pending. The committee took an at-ease from 1:28 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 25-LS1263\E.3, Bullard, 3/26/08, which read: Page 1, line 1, following "Act": Insert "prohibiting certain expenditures made in support of or in opposition to ballot initiatives; and" Page 1, line 11, following "that": Insert "prohibiting expenditures originating from outside the state in support of or in opposition to ballot initiatives and" Page 2, following line 13: Insert new material to read: "(c) It is the intent of the legislature that this Act ensure that monetary expenditures and contributions originating from outside the state not dictate how Alaska ballot initiatives are framed and understood. * Sec. 4. AS 15.13.065(c) is amended to read: (c) Except as provided in AS 15.13.074(j), except for reports required by AS 15.13.040 and 15.13.110, and except for the requirements of AS 15.13.050, 15.13.060, and 15.13.112 - 15.13.114, the provisions of AS 15.13.010 - 15.13.116 do not apply to limit the authority of a person to make contributions to influence the outcome of a ballot proposition. In this subsection, in addition to its meaning in AS 15.60.010, "proposition" includes an issue placed on a ballot to determine whether (1) a constitutional convention shall be called; (2) a debt shall be contracted; (3) an advisory question shall be approved or rejected; or (4) a municipality shall be incorporated. * Sec. 5. AS 15.13.074 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (j) An individual who is a resident of another state or a group or nongroup entity organized under the laws of another state, resident in another state, or whose participants are not residents of this state may not make a contribution in support of or in opposition to an initiative. * Sec. 6. AS 15.13.084 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (b) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, an individual who is a resident of another state or a group or nongroup entity organized under the laws of another state, resident in another state, or whose participants are not residents of this state may not make an expenditure in support of or in opposition to an initiative." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 2, following line 29: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 9. AS 15.13.140(b) is amended to read: (b) An independent expenditure for or against a ballot proposition or question (1) shall be reported in accordance with AS 15.13.040 and 15.13.100 - 15.13.110 and other requirements of this chapter; and (2) may not be made if the expenditure is prohibited by AS 15.13.084(b) or 15.13.145 [AS 15.13.145]." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. REPRESENTATIVES COGHILL and HOLMES objected. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS explained that Amendment 1 would prohibit expenditures by any outside interests from weighing in on a ballot measure. He referred to memoranda in members' packets from the legal drafter. He recapped that the memoranda identify problems in barring a particular source, including a corporation from making contributions. He opined that setting limits would be more acceptable, but that requiring full disclosure has allowed some jurisdictions to accomplish the goal of limiting outside influences. He stated that the purpose of Amendment 1 is to limit funding to an organization that is formed to support or oppose a ballot initiative. He posed a scenario such that "Citizens in Favor of Ballot #3" could purchase advertisements but that the entity would not be allowed to receive funding from outside sources. 1:33:05 PM CHAIR RAMRAS inquired as to whether it is constitutional to prohibit contributions. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS offered that it might be problematic, but he said he wished to start the discussion by raising the issue. He said he realizes that it is also difficult to discern when an "entity" is considered an out-of-state entity. He offered an example of ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., that has offices in state and out-of-state. CHAIR RAMRAS inquired as to whether out-of-state entities can be prohibited from contributing money for the collection of signatures for a ballot initiative. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS withdrew Amendment 1. 1:35:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 25-LS1263\E.4, Bullard, 3/26/08, which read: Page 1, line 1, following "Act": Insert "restricting contributions made in support of or in opposition to ballot initiatives; and" Page 1, line 11, following "that": Insert "limiting the amount of contributions made in support of or in opposition to ballot initiatives and" Page 2, following line 13: Insert new material to read: "(c) It is the intent of the legislature that this Act ensure that contributions made in support of or in opposition to ballot initiatives are restricted in the same manner as other political contributions. * Sec. 4. AS 15.13.065(c) is amended to read: (c) Except for reports required by AS 15.13.040 and 15.13.110 and except for the requirements of AS 15.13.050, 15.13.060, and 15.13.112 - 15.13.114, the provisions of AS 15.13.010 - 15.13.116 do not apply to limit the authority of a person to make contributions to influence the outcome of a ballot proposition. In this subsection, [IN ADDITION TO ITS MEANING IN AS 15.60.010,] "proposition" means a referendum, a constitutional amendment submitted at an election to the public for vote, and [INCLUDES] an issue placed on a ballot to determine whether (1) a constitutional convention shall be called; (2) a debt shall be contracted; (3) an advisory question shall be approved or rejected; or (4) a municipality shall be incorporated. * Sec. 5. AS 15.13.070(b) is amended to read: (b) An individual may contribute not more than (1) $500 a [PER] year to a nongroup entity for the purpose of influencing the nomination or election of a candidate, to a candidate, to an individual who conducts a write-in campaign as a candidate, or to a group that is not a political party; (2) $5,000 a [PER] year to a political party; or (3) $500 a year to an individual, group, or nongroup entity for the purpose of influencing an initiative. * Sec. 6. AS 15.13.070(f) is amended to read: (f) A nongroup entity may contribute not more than $1,000 a year to another nongroup entity for the purpose of influencing an initiative or the nomination or election of a candidate, to a candidate, to an individual who conducts a write-in campaign as a candidate, to a group, or to a political party." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS explained that he obtained two memoranda from the Division of Legal and Research Services and each one cited different U.S. Supreme Court cases. He explained that the attorneys outline that generally restricting particular sources could be problematic. The difference between how an "individual candidate" and a "ballot measure" are treated is that the U.S. Supreme Court has found that limiting contributions to individuals avoids the appearance of corruption. However, once an idea is "debated", limiting a particular source of money is not the same as it would be for an individual candidate. Amendment 2 addresses this issue by requesting full disclosure and limits. Thus, an entity would be subject to the same limits as for candidates. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS opined that the minute someone spends a dollar to garner a signature, the public has a right to know the source of the money being spent to influence a ballot initiative. He stressed that disclosure is important even though the ballot initiative process is at the initial stage of collecting signatures. 1:37:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES argued, however, that an exception to the reporting requirement for $500 contributions exists for individual campaigns such that the candidate can donate unlimited amounts to his/her own campaign. She inquired as to whether a similar exception exists for the individual who initiates a ballot initiative. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS stated that the intent of Amendment 2 is to require the same limits for candidates and ballot initiatives. He surmised that the person collecting signatures and the person forwarding the "idea" should be held to the reporting requirement under the $500 limit. 1:39:09 PM CHAIR RAMRAS offered his understanding of the rationale behind the $1 per signature payment for collecting signatures. He recalled the importance providing payment to people collecting signatures and while he said he did not recollect the specific reason for doing so, that the payment is currently authorized in statute. He opined that Amendment 2 would make it very difficult to finance the collection of signatures. He opined that the collection of signatures is entirely different than advocating or opposing a particular ballot initiative. He asked whether Amendment 2 would apply to both the effort to collect signatures as well as the promotion of an initiative itself. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS answered that it would apply in both instances. He highlighted that if a candidate paid campaign workers to hang flyers on doors then the candidate is required to disclose the source of the expenditure, the amount paid, and the payee. Not only is he subject to disclosure as a candidate, but he also would be subject to the same disclosure in the event he withdrew his candidacy, he noted. CHAIR RAMRAS highlighted that this amendment would affect the Fairbanks North Star Borough's (FNSB) efforts since it spent $150,000 to collect signatures for a ballot initiative that would raise property taxes. He surmised that under Amendment 2, the FNSB would be limited to $500 in total participation. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES referred to page 2, in proposed Section 5. She said she was not sure that the FNSB could actually contribute at all. She opined that her quick view of this section is that the FNSB or a corporation couldn't contribute to an individual campaign either. 1:42:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS stated his intention is for a group that establishes a committee and begins a ballot initiative to submit to disclosure and report the source of donations and report its expenditures. He posed a scenario in which the FNSB begins a ballot initiative and forms a group named "People for Beautiful Flowers Coalition." If that group receives money from the FNSB, it must also disclose the source of any funds from third parties. CHAIR RAMRAS inquired as to whether individuals can self-fund their own initiatives. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS answered that he did not think they would be prohibited from doing so. He referred to page 2, subsection (g), which requires disclosure of expenditures exceeding $500. CHAIR RAMRAS inquired as to whether a person can self-fund a ballot initiative to place it on the ballot and once it is on the ballot, whether the person can also fund to advocate or oppose the ballot initiative. 1:47:16 PM ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA), answered that an individual could use his/her own resources to support or oppose an initiative. He pointed out that the proposed legislative intent on page 2, subsection (b), and Amendment [2] would not operate to restrict the activity. Thus, an individual could self-fund an initiative or could self- fund efforts to support or oppose an initiative. In further response to Chair Ramras, Mr. Bullard offered that if the individual was the one who collected the signatures as one of the initiative committee sponsors using his/her own funds, not contributing them to an individual, group, or non group entity, that the individual "would be in the clear." CHAIR RAMRAS asked if a third party, such as Representative Holmes, wanted to contribute $500 to the effort, to an initiative, since the entity is not yet established. MR. BULLARD answered that he was not entirely sure. He said he thought that a third party, such as Representative Holmes, could contribute $500 to the individual who is collecting the signatures, such as Mr. Ramras, even though the entity is not yet established. CHAIR RAMRAS pointed out that current law allows for three prime sponsors to start a ballot initiative. He inquired as to whether a third party could contribute to each of the three prime sponsors. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES inquired as to whether she could, as a third party, contribute to all three prime sponsors at $500 each. MR. BULLARD answered that he thought that the third party, such as Representative Holmes as a third party, would be limited to contribute only $500 per year to any one of the sponsors since the sponsors constitute a legislative initiative committee, which is considered a group. He offered that the easiest way to understand Amendment 2 is to realize that this amendment matches what is currently provided for candidates under election statutes under AS 15.13 and this bill would make it identical for ballot initiatives. 1:50:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES inquired as to whether corporations would be able to either contribute to a committee and, if not, whether corporations can fund their own commercials. MR. BULLARD referred to page 2 of Amendment 2, in proposed AS 15.13.070(f), and explained that this subsection would limit the corporation to $1,000 contribution. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES inquired as to whether a corporation is considered a non-group entity. MR. BULLARD referred to proposed AS 15.13.070, which is also modified by proposed Section 6. CHAIR RAMRAS inquired as to the intent of Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS offered that his goal for both Amendment 6 and this bill is to "know where the money comes from." He said, "I want to limit the amount of money that flows into the initiative process." He further stated that the process should be transparent. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS withdrew Amendment 2. 1:53:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS made a motion to adopt Amendment 3 labeled 25-LS1263\E.2, Bullard, 3/25/08, which read: Page 3, lines 12 - 18: Delete all material and insert: "Sec. 15.45.770. Registration and reporting. (a) In addition to those persons required to register before making an expenditure in support of or in opposition to a ballot initiative under AS 15.13.050(a), an individual making expenditures exceeding $500 in a calendar year in support of or in opposition to an initiative shall register with the commission. (b) A person making expenditures in support of or in opposition to an initiative and registered under AS 15.13.050(a) and an individual registered under (a) of this section shall file reports as required by AS 15.13.040 and AS 15.13.110." Reletter the following subsections accordingly. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected. MS. CHRISTENSEN explained that Amendment 3 will remove redundant language from Version E. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, in response to Chair Ramras, stated that he could not imagine collecting signatures for a ballot initiative in instances in which a person is opposed to the initiative. He further stressed his desire for an open and transparent process. 1:56:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that elected officials also have two phases to its campaign, since many candidates have primary opponents. The primary process involves extensive reporting, as well, he opined. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether Amendment 3 is constitutional. MR. BULLARD answered that he believes that Amendment 3 is constitutional. However, he stated that he has not written an opinion to that effect. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to whether Amendment 3 is affected by McIntyre v. the Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 335(1995). MR. BULLARD believe that the $500 limit for individuals precludes any constitutional problem that McIntyre decision might raise, because McIntyre related to an anonymous person distributing leaflets about a school board election. He pointed out that ballot initiatives present a much larger situation. Distributing leaflets is a local concern, which is different than the speech associated with ballot initiatives, he opined. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that Amendment 3 uses both the terms "person" and "individual." He inquired as to whether the terms should be made the same. MR. BULLARD stated that under current statute, AS 15.13.050, persons, other than individuals - which consist of corporations, groups, and non groups - are required to report prior to making expenditures in support of or in opposition to a ballot initiative. Amendment 3 merely adds in individuals making expenditures that exceed $500. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to whether "individuals" is included within the definition of "persons" and if "individuals" are currently required to register. 2:00:18 PM MR. BULLARD answered that they are not required to register. He stated that Amendment 3 reflects AS 15.13.050, which provides that a person other than an individual must register. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES stated that proposed subsection (a) of the bill seems to add a new requirement for individuals. She asked if this means that if a corporation or a non group entity makes independent expenditures in excess of $500 that those entities are not required to register under Amendment 3. She posed a scenario in which a corporation expended $500 or more and surmised that the corporation would not need to register or report. MR. BULLARD answered that the registration requirements already exist and he referred to AS 15.13.050, which would require Representative Holmes' hypothetical corporation to register. He stated that Amendment 3 doesn't change that requirement. 2:02:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES withdrew her objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 3 was adopted. CHAIR RAMRAS, after first determining that no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 355. 2:02:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report the proposed CS for HB 355, Version 25-LS1263\E, Bullard, 3/20/08, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 355(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee. CHAIR RAMRAS urged the sponsor to recognize the two distinct processes addressed in the bill that protect the rights of democracy and yet still meet the rights of full disclosure. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS remarked that the initiative process to obtain the necessary signatures is as important to the public and the process, as are the bumper stickers that are purchased once the initiative is authorized to be on the ballot. He offered a hypothetical example, in which ExxonMobil Corporation is working to obtain signatures for a ballot initiative. He opined that the public has a right to know if the ExxonMobil Corporation is pushing for an initiative through its funding of the signature collection process. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES urged the bill's sponsor to work to ensure that HB 355 does not contain a loophole that would allow corporations to spend money and avoid reporting in a way that an individual cannot. CHAIR RAMRAS remarked that he does not like HB 355, but he said he felt that the majority of the committee wanted to see the bill moved. [CSHB 355(JUD) was reported from committee.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|