Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/09/1996 10:03 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 368 - ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM HB 317 - ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Committee was HB 368 and HB 317. CHAIR JAMES called on Representative David Finkelstein to explain the committee substitute. CHAIR JAMES announced she wanted to move the bill forward today. Number 2381 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to adopt CSHB 368(STA) (9-LS1348/C) as a working document. Hearing no objection, it was so adopted. Number 2413 REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN explained the comparison chart distributed to the committee members. The first column contained the provisions in the current law, the second column contained the provisions in the initiative, and the third column contained the provisions in the committee substitute (9-LS1348/C). The major provision were: contributions from individuals, contributions from parties, contributions not from individual (i.e. corporations, unions), contributions from groups of individuals, lobbyists, when money can be raised, personal use of campaign funds, carry forward of campaign surpluses, out-of-state contributions, independent expenditures, public funds, serious violations, civil penalties, and power to enforce. TAPE 96-33, SIDE A Number 0063 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered where a party was defined. CHAIR JAMES replied that would be addressed in the proposed amendments. Number 0470 CHAIR JAMES complimented Representative Finkelstein for his work on the comparison chart. She explained there were two definitions of a political party presented. She liked the first definition. The second definition would include all organizations affiliated with a political party in the contribution limits. She was concerned about the organizations that did not want to be a part of the party and remain a group. Number 0518 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN concurred with her support for the first definition. He stated the second definition would cause confusion. Number 0603 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to adopted Amendment 1 (9- LS1348/C.1/B). No one objected, but the discussion continued. Number 0626 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the amendments had been presented to the initiative movement, and wondered which political party definition he supported. Number 0640 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied there really was not a lot of difference between the two definitions. The key question was who determined who was a subdivision, and both definitions defined it as 3 percent of the total votes casted. He stated the differentiation between a subordinate unit and other units was artificial. All the groups out there should have a choice of joining the party, or being their own group, and both definitions allowed that. A differentiation was not intended in the initiative, however. Number 0765 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the first definition allowed a clear separation between the groups that were not traditional party subgroups. Furthermore, it would allow the differentiation between the subgroups of the parties and the affiliated groups of the parties. Number 0821 CHAIR JAMES explained the concept of the district and state central party committees. A coordination of the contribution limits was necessary amongst all the subordinates, therefore, a centralized decision making process was needed. She called it an unwieldy situation. Number 1026 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said everyone agreed that the affiliated groups should have a choice, and both definitions allowed that choice. It was more obvious, however, in the second definition under subsection (C). According to the first definition it was necessary to be subsumed within the party. He was afraid the first definition would be interpreted to preclude some groups from becoming part of the party if they wanted to. The second definition gave the choice under subsection (C). Number 1076 CHAIR JAMES said she did not read the definitions the same as Representative Finkelstein. A political party according to the second definition did not have the option to be a group, but only a political party. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied he interpreted it differently. There was nothing that mandated it in the second definition. Subsection (C) read, "an organization that, by virtue of the rules or bylaws of the organized group of voters qualifying as a political party under (A) of this paragraph, is affiliated with the political party." Number 1126 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied subsection (C) did not give the party the ability say "yes" or "no" to that. Number 1134 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied according to subsection (C) it was up to the rules of the party. Number 1144 CHAIR JAMES responded the only choice for a person to be a group was for the party to disassociate with them. It was not in the best interest of either Parties to cut the life-line. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied, according to that interpretation, both definitions achieved the same thing. CHAIR JAMES asked if there was further objection to Amendment 1. Hearing none, it was so adopted. Number 1179 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN wondered about lobbyists contributing in their own district. He said lobbyists lived mostly in Anchorage and Juneau. Number 1247 CHAIR JAMES replied it was a perception issue. The general public did not want a lobbyist to give money to anybody, but he also had a general right as a citizen of a district to contribute to his district. It was a constitutional issue as well. Furthermore, it was not a problem for one that did not have a lobbyist in his district. Number 1343 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated most lobbyists would probably agree with a total ban on giving money. CHAIR JAMES agreed with Representative Robinson. Lobbyists felt obligated to give money in order to do business again. Number 1388 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to adopt Amendment 2 (9-LS1260/F.2). CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Finkelstein to explain the amendment. Number 1403 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 2 was a technical and conforming amendment. It removed "50 percent" in current law and inserted "33 1/3 percent" for the support or opposition of a candidate and the inclusion of the candidates name as part of the group. This was based on a recommendation from the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC). CHAIR JAMES stated hearing no further objection, Amendment 2 was so adopted. Number 1454 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to adopt Amendment 3 (9-LS1260/F.3). CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Finkelstein to explain the amendment. Number 1466 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 3 was a technical amendment. It removed unnecessary language. It did not affect the content, however. CHAIR JAMES stated hearing no further objection, Amendment 3 was so adopted. Number 1488 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to adopt Amendment 4 (9-LS1260/F.4). CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Finkelstein to explain the amendment. Number 1500 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 4 was a technical amendment. An individual could make a contribution to a political party as well as a group. CHAIR JAMES stated hearing no further objection, Amendment 4 was so adopted. CHAIR JAMES explained Amendment 2 - 4 should read CSHB 368(STA) and not CSSB 191( ) as expressed in the draft amendments. Number 1626 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved that CSHB 368(STA) (9-LS1348/C) move from the committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing no objection, it was so moved from the House State Affairs Committee. CHAIR JAMES announced she would attached a $0 fiscal note. CHAIR JAMES apologized to the teleconference testifiers for not calling on their testimony. She suggested they submit a written statement for the record. Number 1770 KATHY ASHBY responded via teleconference in Anchorage that it would be futile. She only suggested that to make us feel better. Number 1818 CHAIR JAMES replied it would become part of the record with a statement explaining the circumstances. She apologized again. MS. ASHBY said she felt very disaffected by the whole procedure. She felt betrayed. The information the committee members were discussing today did not match the information at the Legislative Information Office (LIO) in Anchorage. CHAIR JAMES apologized to Ms. Ashby again. She announced she would personally forward information to her and personally notify her of the next time the bill would be heard.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|