Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/26/1998 08:08 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CSSB 275(STA) - FUND RAISING: GOV; LT. GOV; & CANDIDATES Number 0038 CHAIR JAMES announced the committee would address CSSB 275(STA), "An Act specifying time periods for making, soliciting, or accepting campaign contributions to candidates for state office; and providing for an effective date," sponsored by Senator Mike Miller. SENATOR MIKE MILLER came before the committee. He noted there was a previous hearing on the legislation. He said he would answer questions the committee may have. Number 0066 CHAIR JAMES pointed out at the last meeting on SB 275, there was an amendment on the table by Representative Berkowitz. SENATOR MILLER referred to the proposed amendment and said it would allow everybody to fund-raise during the legislative session. He said he believes that it flies in the face of the voter initiative that would have been on the ballot last year. He said by adopting the amendment it allows the perception of, "Now there goes the legislature again, feathering their own nest, allowing them to raise money during session." The committee knows that is not the case, but that will be the perception. Number 0174 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY indicated a problem he has is people who aren't in a public office are being restricted. He said if it related to just incumbents, he wouldn't have any problems at all. It goes beyond incumbents and addresses challengers. Representative Vezey asked if there isn't some way to leave challengers out. SENATOR MILLER replied that there certainly is the ability to do that. He said, "That particular amendment would find some tough (indisc.) over on the Senate side and we'd probably end up (indisc.)." Number 0391 REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON referred to discussion, in the previous hearing on CSSB 275(STA), relating to what an unintended consequence is and asked Senator Miller what kind of an amendment he thinks is needed. He said because the legislation changes language says "for election or reelction of state of office," this would allow a sitting legislator during the legislative session to collect money for a municipal office. For example, he could have held a fund-raiser during the legislative session if he had filed a letter of intent to run for mayor of Juneau in the October municipal election. Representative Elton said he couldn't have done it last year, but if CSSB 275(STA) becomes law, he could do it next year. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said it seems to him that either that unintended consequence needs to be corrected or correct the title of the bill. The title of the bill speaks only to contributions to candidates for state office when, in fact, one of the consequences of the bill (indisc.) a municipal office. He said he would be interested in Senator Miller's view on whether or not he would like to allow the prohibition of raising funds, by a sitting legislator, who runs for municipal office or whether he would want to open that door. Number 0507 SENATOR MILLER said part of the problem is because of the patchwork of laws regarding municipal elections around the state. A good example is the Municipality of Anchorage has their election in April. Not allowing a legislator to raise funds if a legislator wants to run for the assembly, is hard to envision. Under that provision, there is no way that they would have the option to even raise money to run for that office. He pointed out that if all the city elections were held in November, it might be something to look at. He said, "The way the patchwork of elections around the state right now, I think by not allowing a legislator to raise money if he wants to run for the mayor of Anchorage, with their election in April, you have potentially excluded that person from running for the mayor of Anchorage." Senator Miller said he doesn't think that we would necessarily want that as a consequence either. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Senator Miller, if the bill is left as it is, is a title amendment needed. Number 0652 SENATOR MILLER indicated he would let Ms. Parker of his staff respond as she has been working with the drafter of the legislation. PORTIA PARKER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Mike Miller, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee. She said that the issue hadn't been brought to her attention until the previous day, by the drafter, that it may pose a problem. She indicated the drafter hadn't even thought about it. The drafter said it may be a concern and is looking into the issue further to see if it may pose a problem. She said, "Because it specifies state office, (indisc.) indirectly by changing the language here, it does affect the ability to fund-raise for municipal and federal offices." Number 0734 CHAIR JAMES she would like the committee to address the amendment then the committee could get into the specifics of the bill. Number 0760 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked Representative Berkowitz, author of the amendment, what he believes the amendment accomplishes. Number 0778 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ responded that the amendment narrows the scope from all state offices to just state legislature. Those who are in the legislature can't raise funds for legislative races as opposed to making a ban on the statewide offices. He referred to testimony by Wayne Anthony Ross about the playing field changing and said he thinks that pressures are different in a statewide office and you need to raise money differently. He indicated the amendment eliminates a problem he sees with the legislation which is it makes running for a statewide office the purview of those who have a lot of personal wealth or those who have stockpiled a lot of money for a campaign. Number 0849 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said it just makes the fund-raising ban for legislators only. He asked if that isn't the current situation. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded that a legislator who is running for a statewide office can't raise money. The amendment would allow Senator Taylor to raise money for his race for governor. Currently, he can't raise money. Number 0889 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON referred to when the bill was being drafted and asked what the thinking was in not including the statewide offices in the ban on fund-raising. Number 0900 SENATOR MILLER noted Senator Donley was in attendance and he did a lot of the work relating to that particular issue. He said he believes that they were trying to deal with the specific issue which was the initiative that would have appeared on the ballot. At that time that initiative did not deal with the Administrative Branch. Number 0941 SENATOR DAVE DONLEY came before the committee. He said Senator Miller's comments are correct, but it even goes further than that. He said, "As we were working on the legislation, we started with the initiative document. Of course it wasn't written by our drafters, but it didn't have the benefit of the revisor of statutes. We realized that a lot of those things in the (indisc.) initiative conflicted with the existing law and other sections of the statute. A perfect example of that was with the ethics law, which allowed legislators to raise money for a congressional or non-legislative race during the legislative session. That was the existing ethics law. When the specific proposal came through the committee process that was contained in the initiative, some of us asked the people who were shepherding the new campaign finance law through, 'What about this conflict with the existing law? It looks like it's in conflict.' And we were told exactly (indisc.) done. Mr. Miles (ph), who was the staff in charge of it, was charged with going and finding out the answer to that question, came back and told us that this wouldn't supersede the existing law to be able to continue - the existing scheme would continue, even though this said that which seemed problematic to me, but in the rush to get that project done, we never went back and changed it. Basically on the (indisc.) of staff that they had checked this out and it wouldn't conflict with the existing status quo. Subsequently, the attorney general issued an opinion, after it was all done, that it did conflict with the existing status quo. And under the theory of law that a prior law can be overruled by a subsequent law even though it's specifically in conflict you can follow the most recent one - the more restrictive one now was banned. And that clearly was not the intent of the legislature at the time because it was going through the committee process. We asked that question and we were given a different (indisc.) answer for (indisc.) finally determined by the attorney general." Number 1063 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY referred to the campaign finance reform legislation that was passed last year and said everybody just abandoned common sense and their sense of constitutional value and enacted a "populous" piece of legislation. Now they sit in a position of trying to put a fix on an extremely broken piece of legislation and there is nothing they can do that is going to make it good. Representative Vezey said as much as he doesn't like this legislation, the relative conduct of the Governor's office of raising money during the legislative session is deplorable to him and it is extremely sensitive to most Alaskans. Representative Vezey said, "The issue here is very simple. Do we condone the chief executive, the most powerful office in the United States outside of the presidency, to raise funds when the legislature is in session and when other elected official are prohibited from raising funds or not? Is there another alternative?" Number 1164 REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS stated, "While I may not have a conflict of interest in this Administration, I might have in other Administrations. It's probably wise for all of us to declare a conflict of interest on the off chance that some of the money that the Governor is raising gets into legislative campaigns at a future date." CHAIR JAMES asked if there was an objection to the amendment. Number 1181 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS objected. He noted he had at the last hearing on the measure. Number 1191 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "What we're having here is sort of a philosophical objection with political overtones. And political overtones here are -- it seems to me that no one wants the Governor to raise money because he's a Democrat which is part of the way the game gets played. But the philosophical problem I have with this is what we are doing is we're saying that people who don't have the resources to run for state offices personally, they're not going to be allowed to raise money. It becomes part of the question of free speech that we're talking about, part of the question of delivering a message to the general public. You know I've disagreed with Wayne Ross many times in the court room politically, but he is dead-on when he says the Governor has bully pulpit. Robin Taylor has a pulpit to (indisc.), John Lindauer has a lot of personal wealth. Those resources enable him to get out and convey a political message - a political speech that he can't do if he or someone like him runs in the future because they don't have the access to the money because we're closing that door down. And to me, that's fundamentally unfair. It's not only unfair to the candidate, but it's unfair to the general electorate because they're only hearing the voices that have public pulpits already or else have a lot of personal wealth." Number 1268 SENATOR MILLER said, "Then this is the wrong amendment to deal with that issue. If that's the issue we want to deal with (indisc.) the amendment, I would (indisc.) Representative Dyson -- where it opens it up to non-incumbents by giving incumbents more power to raise money is not the direction to go if you want to solve that problem (indisc.)." Number 1293 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that is only part of the objection. The other part of the objection is that the non-incumbent who is wealthy has an advantage over the non-incumbent who isn't wealthy. The whole point of political speech is to get political discourse going. He said, "If we say 'political discourse,' it (indisc.) the purview of those who have the resources to buy a television, to buy a radio, to do mass mailings out of their own pocket. What we're saying is that people who have less money or who aren't able to use those (indisc.) don't have the same access to the political process. I don't think that's the message you want to convey. Now this amendment is not a perfect thing, this is not a perfect bill. You got to die before you find perfection. We're just trying to get some measure of equity here and I think the more equitable solution is to open up the process rather than constricting." Number 1341 CHAIRMAN JAMES said it is Representative Dyson's suggestion that what we do is only restrict incumbents and not challengers. She said nothing can be done about the fact that people have money. Representative James referred to the campaign finance legislation passed last year that gave the people with money a much bigger place than they ever had before. She stated that was because you can't stop them from using their own money, and course we all pay for the price when the public seems to think that we're not ethical. She said, "Your argument that you were giving for supporting this bill, you could give the same argument for the other amendment that Representative Dyson would like to see because it does the same thing. The only thing different is that your amendment would let the Governor raise funds and Dyson's would not, but it would let Wayne Ross raise money which is what I thought you were principally trying to get to with this amendment." Number 1411 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he understands Representative Dyson's amendment to be a ban on the incumbent. He said, "Assuming that a different Administration, which there will be one day - probably not as soon as folks on the other side of the of the table would like, but there will be. I think it leaves an incumbent in an unfair position vis- -vis a wealthy opponent. Because the wealthy opponent can (indisc.) all day long and not give the incumbent an opportunity to respond. You know, I don't like the fact that we have to raise money to run for office. We could do some kind of a scheme where the state paid for campaigns. That's not where we want to go. So the only real practical alternative is to open this up as much as possible. And I think, Madam Chair, you have said it many times. The antidote is disclosure. So by constricting the process, I don't see how we're advancing political discourse." Number 1478 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he will vote for the amendment because it makes an incremental improvement. If there is another amendment introduced that make a bigger incremental improvement, he'd probably vote for that also. SENATOR MILLER said the bill would have come forward even if there was a Republican governor because there is a perception that politics is corrupt and they know it's not. He said, "We know that everybody down here are hardworking individuals that are trying to do the best for the state and whatever we could do to correct that perception that politics is corrupt, we should do it. And quite frankly, with the current structure that we have out there, this should go forward whether we have a Republican governor or a Democrat governor. Because it's, in my opinion, it gives the - the public more confidence than what we can in the structure that we have." Senator Miller said he agrees with Representative Berkowitz disclosure being the way to go, he certainly looks forward to the introduction of his bill reviewing (indisc.) Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) and going forward in that direction. Number 1558 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said if Representative Berkowitz introduces legislation to repeal the APOC and open up the (indisc.), he would co-sponsor it. Number 1573 SENATOR DONLEY pointed out that there is more to the bill than just the campaign fund-raising aspect, there is the ethics aspect. He said, "It may seem like this might be a balancing under campaign fund-raising aspects which I disagree with also, but clearly if you go the ethics aspect, the proposal that came from the Senate is the right thing to do. There is no distinction, that I can see logically, between the public policy that's served by not allowing people to accept contributions (indisc.), and allowing lobbyists or interest groups to come forward and say, 'We're going to give money to your opponent next week if you don't vote a certain way on the bill.' It's the same problem - same ethical problem that's going to be (indisc.). And by allowing people outside the legislature to fund raise while the legislature is in session, the opponents of individual (indisc.) can have that same exact ethical problem occurring as we have tried to prevent with this status quo this long. Frankly, that seems like a very dangerous situation to get into also." CHAIR JAMES indicated the committee is ready to vote on the amendment. Number 1650 A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Elton and Berkowitz voted in favor the amendment. Representatives Hodgins, Vezey, Dyson and James voted against the amendment. So the amendment failed to be adopted. Number 1654 CHAIR JAMES indicated she is still concerned about the title and municipal issues. She said, "I'm concerned about that issue because if we need to do that title change - if we do need to do a title change to effect that one issue, what is your understanding of that Senator Miller?" Number 1696 SENATOR MILLER said he isn't sure if it needs a title change or not. He noted he had just found out the previous day about the issue. CHAIR JAMES said, "Is there any way that you could call now and find out a definitive answer. Here's my concern is that I'm willing to put this bill out, as it is, if we have the votes. However, my preference would be have it be just the incumbents, but I don't want you to have to split it to a conference committee if you don't want to do that because this bill, if it passes or not, is - the timing is the most important part of the bill. And so the longer we don't do the bill, the more it doesn't have any effect for this campaign year. So if it's going to have to have a title change and have to go -- we still have to go to the House floor and by that time if a title change is determined to be needed, then we're going to have to have a conference anyway. I believe it's the attitude of this committee that they would rather have it only effect incumbents." Number 1760 MS. PARKER indicated the drafter has said there is a potential problem. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, "I guess my concern is that if we have trouble in this committee on that issue, it still has to go to the House floor. And, you know, I think that if you want the bill that we need to make it as palatable as possible in that respect. And we're going to hear testimony on that issue." Number 1797 SENATOR MILLER responded, "If you wanted to imply to an incumbent, you could probably do a (indisc.). I think you could probably do it without a title change. And quite frankly, there is no law that has ever been thrown out of the state, that I know of, on the challenge of the title of what they said it was in the bill. And actually we had researched that a couple of years ago. I mean it's certainly a policy call of this committee and, you know, it'll be a policy call on the floor. When it gets to the floor the body may believe it should apply to everybody." Number 1822 CHAIR JAMES said the way the bill is written, she doesn't believe the title is a problem. If it does have an indirect effect on municipal candidates, then it may. Number 1837 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON indicated that in the course of discussion with the attorney, he did discuss the problem with the title. He said he thinks that the characterization that Ms. Parker made on the questions that the committee had is the same characterization of the discussion that the attorney had with him. He stated he believes it is an open question. Representative Elton said his preference would be that the committee resolve that question before the bill is moved out of committee. CHAIR JAMES explained her concern is that if there is a potential glitch, what will it do to the bill as it moves forward. She said for the purpose of the bill, timing is extremely important. Number 1899 SENATOR MILLER said, "Well I think you have brought up two issues. I think the one issue if you want to deal with only incumbents, I do not believe that you have a title problem. On the other one, the campaign of fund-raising for a municipal election - if you wanted to deal with that, you very well may have a title problem. I'm not sure. But I still think you may have a problem with the way the elections are in Anchorage and Anchorage is half the population of the state." Senator Miller said he would like the bill to move, but it is certainly the purview of the committee. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he understands there would be a title problem if the language is in the current form. He said the title doesn't reflect the changes to municipal elections that occur under the current language. He stated his understanding from the conversation with the attorney is there would be a title problem if the bill passes the way it is currently written. Number 1951 CHAIR JAMES indicated it was her understanding that if the committee didn't include "municipal offices," then there would be a title problem. She asked if that is correct. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said that isn't correct. What the present language does is change the rules for municipal elections. It changes the campaign finance rule for municipal elections. So that change may require a different title. He said, "If we adopt an amendment that would maintain the status quo, prohibiting sitting legislators from raising money for municipal office - if we adopted an amendment like that then we probably wouldn't have." Number 1986 CHAIR JAMES asked where the language is in the bill that affects municipal candidates. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred the committee to page 1, line 7, and the new language that says, "for election or reelection to state office..." Number 1999 MS. PARKER said, "I've gone over this several times about trying to explain this so I could understand it when he was explaining it to me because I didn't get it either because it's an indirect -- it's not contained in the content of the bill, but because of the effect it has by changing the language that's in current statute. So the only people it effects are sitting legislators who are incumbents who, right now, are prohibited from fund-raising for filing for any office, whether it's federal, municipal or state - only legislators. If under this because you say only when you're filing for election or reelection to state office, that opens up that you can begin raising money for federal or municipal offices. So it effects -- immediately it'll effect someone like Jim Duncan who filed for Congress. That will change so now he could start raising money when this became effective because for that indirect change in how it effects people who can fund raise is how they think there is a potential problem because we only mention state office that it's (indisc.) for office, then it would be all inclusive." CHAIR JAMES asked, "Do we care that it does that?" MS. PARKER responded that she doesn't. Number 2067 CHAIR JAMES said because Senator Duncan is running for federal office, he could fund-raise and anyone who is in the legislature and runs for the mayor of Anchorage could fund-raise. MS. PARKER responded, "That's correct because they have not filed for election or reelection to a state office." CHAIR JAMES said the decision is do we want that to happen. She said if it is, then the committee shouldn't amend the bill and a title change wouldn't be needed. Number 2076 MS. PARKER said the potential that there could be a title problem has to do with what is currently contained in the bill. Number 2085 SENATOR MILLER said, "It's the word 'state.' It could be a potential. However, if it goes forward somebody would have to challenge it and like I stated before, I know of no law in the state of Alaska that has been thrown out because of a title." Number 2097 CHAIR JAMES asked what the will of the committee was. Number 2119 GEORGE MARTIN testified from Kenai. He said SB 275, overall, is just bad legislation. It's his right to free speech that will be infringed on if the legislation becomes law. Mr. Martin pointed out that United States Supreme Court has held, in several rulings, that political donations and free speech are one and the same. The original basis for similar legislation applying to state House and Senate seats were (indisc.) on the basis that it was in the public's interest to prevent elected officials from using the power of their office to improperly raise money for reelection - to protect the public from weak legislators that might use their position to offer undue influence to raise money. He said that we are moving beyond that to a position to anybody who runs for public office during the legislative session. He said, "You're getting into a different ballpark. I may be choosing to support someone who is just 'Joe Blow' out here on the street - helping him to get ready to run for a Senate seat or Governor or whatever. he is being put into a position where he can't raise any money and I'm being put into a position where I cannot support him at this point in time. The level playing field scenario is all fine and dandy, but I don't think it'll sell in court. I think you're going to wind up with the whole thing thrown out with the - the baby would be thrown out with the bath water. So I would really ask you folks to reconsider this bill in its entirety. I would certainly recommend, at the very least, if you amend it to exclude those folks who are not now holding a public office. Because if you don't it will get challenged, there will be at the very least a temporary injunction placed against this and you're going to be right back where you started. It will not have any effect. I really would appreciate your consideration on it. Thank you." Number 2229 AL J. TURNINSKY, JR., testified via teleconference from Glennallen. He indicated he has submitted his written testimony to the committee and doesn't have anything more to add. Number 2236 CHAIR JAMES indicated there were no other witnesses to testify and closed the public hearing on CSSB 275(STA). Number 2241 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he had an amendment to offer: on page 3, delete line 24. He said that the playing field is being changed in the middle of the game which has a direct effect on Wayne Anthony Ross who is running for Governor. Mr. Ross filed for Governor under the current rules and he is the person who is most at risk with the passage of the legislation. Representative Elton stated that it is fine to say that this is a good idea, but he believes it is wrong to say that it is a good idea to do it right now. The rug is being pulled out from under somebody who has every right to run as (indic.) and campaign for Governor. Number 2300 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected to the amendment. He stated the person who is most impacted is the incumbent Governor. Other people are impacted but nobody is impacted as much as the incumbent Governor. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Berkowitz and Elton voted in favor of the amendment. Representative Dyson, Vezey, Hodgins and James voted against the amendment. So the amendment failed to be adopted. Number 2347 CHAIR JAMES noted that was Amendment 2. Number 2349 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON indicated he had another amendment on page 1, line 7, after the word "for" insert "election to municipal office or". And then on lines 9 through 13, delete the changes and retain the original language. Representative Elton said the amendment would have two net effects. He said, "The first effect is we maintain the prohibition where the sitting legislator cannot, during a legislative session, raise money for municipal office. And I think that resolves the title problem that we were discussing earlier. The second effect of this is that it maintains the prohibition on fund-raising during any special session. I mean the change in the language from line 8 through line 13 essentially opens the door a little bit on fund-raising during a special session because any special session that isn't held between the end of the session and mid-May and the last week or two of May, the prohibition would still be there. Right now we have a prohibition on any special session. This would allow fund-raising as long as the election is 90 days out even if there is a special session. So assuming that the primary is at the end of August, you would be able raise, during a special session, 90 days up in front of the primary and the general election. Then in early November you'd be able to raise - fund-raise (indisc.)." Number 2448 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected to Representative Elton's amendment. He said, "I have never been able to conscience the concept that we allow the governor of the state of Alaska to determine whether or not candidates for legislative office can raise political contributions. I think that prohibition is totally unconscionable and I have...." TAPE 98-26, SIDE B Number 0001 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY continued, "...that grant of power to the Governor by this body is absolutely unconscionable and this bill seeks to revoke that so I think...." Number 0022 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated he understands Representative Vezey's objection. He said he would point out that every four years, the Governor would also (indisc.) his ability to raise money under that provision also because this bill widens it to cover gubernatorial races. A special session would also prohibit his or her ability to raise money during a special session also. He noted that would be if the special session is during a gubernatorial election year. Number 0041 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY indicated he doesn't accept Representative Elton's statement. Number 0057 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON referred to page 3, line 24, Section 3, and asked if it would be legal to amend it to say, "This Act takes effect immediately under AS 01.10.070(c), and May 15, 1998, for non-incumbents of state office." He asked if there could be a staggered enactment. Number 0089 SENATOR DONLEY responded, "My guess is (indisc.) well (indisc.) that you can't have a split effective date and discriminate between office holders and non-office holders, then how can you have a limitation to discriminate between office holders and non-office holders." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he agrees it is a problem because you wind up with some kind of disparity. Number 0118 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he would like to point out that he thinks that it gets back to a problem that Senator Donley discussed earlier that there is a flip side to this. If there is a perception problem, you're not just prohibiting the ability of somebody to give you money. He said, "You're also giving a potential contributor the right to go to someone and say, 'I'm going to give money to somebody else.' And so I think the problem may not just be a legal problem if we want to open that door." Number 0139 CHAIR JAMES said, "Representative Elton, I don't think that we have any control at all over what somebody comes in and tells us they're going to do if we don't vote for something. The issue is do we listen to them. That's the issue. It is not the threat. Anybody can threaten use for what they want to do. The only thing that's unethical is if we yield to it and it benefits us in some way. So I don't think that is the problem." REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he is reiterating somebody else's problem and is not stating his problem, but he believes there is a perception problem. Number 0176 SENATOR DONLEY said he thinks that existing law that says some people can raise money and other people can't raise money is constitutionally suspect. He stated he doesn't know the answer, but he thinks that under existing law where you have a difference between two citizens - one can run for office and raise money, and one running for office who can't, is very suspect under the First Amendment. Number 0197 MS. PARKER referred to representative Elton's amendment and said there would be several other problems. The first is the change on line 7. The bill allows sitting incumbents to fund-raise for federal offices. It doesn't address fund-raising during session. It addresses part of it, but it doesn't address federal. Ms. Parker referred to the potential abuse of the Governor to call a special session three weeks before an election is certainly a big concern. Ms. Parker referred to a third problem of when there may be a special election. She pointed out the last time there was a special election, it was held in April for a legislative office. She said they wouldn't be allowed to fund-raise at all because they both would be candidates for a state office. Number 0243 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "The allegation is that somebody can not raise money for federal office right now. My understanding is they...." MS. PARKER stated, "According to APOC, yesterday they told me they cannot if they are a sitting legislator." Number 0259 SENATOR DONLEY said, "Because of the difference between the campaign finance law and the ethics law that's why -- you've got two parallel laws going on which could be creating a dichotomy which is one of the advantages of the Senate version 275. It makes it uniform law - the difference between ethics and campaign. REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS questioned why the committee is talking about federal office. He asked if it is in the bill. Number 0275 CHAIR JAMES indicated it is not in the bill, but it is implied. She said she would rule that the discussion of federal office is certainly applicable, particularly since there is a Senator running for federal office. Number 0287 SUSIE BARNETT, Professional Assistant, Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She informed the committee federal law supersedes the ethics law in this case. She noted she has researched it. There is case law from Georgia that allows those running for federal office to fund- raise during session. Number 0307 MS. PARKER stated that according to APOC, they still have to file for office under 15.13.100. CHAIR JAMES said the committee is getting away from discussion on the amendment. She suggested the committee deal with the amendment. Chair James said there was an objection to the amendment and asked for a roll call vote. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked what the amendment is. CHAIR JAMES stated the amendment is on page 1, line 7, after "for" and before "election" insert "to municipal office or". She also said between lines 9 and 13, exclude all of the changed language and go back to the original wording. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Elton and Berkowitz voted in favor of adopting the amendment. Representatives Hodgins, Vezey, Dyson and James voted against the amendment. The amendment failed to be adopted. CHAIR JAMES informed the committee that she would like a motion to move the bill out of committee. She said she still has some concerns the bill might have to go to a conference committee. It would be her preference that the bill only affected incumbents, but she will leave that up to Senator Miller. Number 0386 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he thinks the committee is trying to fix bad legislation that the courts are going to overturn. He said, "If you all -- I could be off the horns of the dilemma if you would allow an amendment which says - at the end of Section 3 it says 'for incumbent and May 15, 1998, for non-incumbents of state office.' I could move the thing out today and I'm hoping that my thoughts on this will get clearer as we get further down the road. And literally, no one has talked to me about this until yesterday." Number 0450 CHAIR JAMES said there is the perception that incumbents have more of an advantage and it is a reality. There is no way that you can deny it. The interest of the public seems to be trying to make a level playing field. Chair James said if she recalls correctly, it was intended to let a challenger raise funds during the legislative process. SENATOR MILLER said it is within the prerogative of the committee to make the amendment. Number 0523 CHAIR JAMES said, "I don't think that in getting to that a suggestion of an amendment that Representative Dyson has the right amendment, but I will entertain an amendment that would -- if somebody could tell me exactly where the language needs to be changed that this prohibition for funding is purely and simply for incumbents and not challengers." Number 0549 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he appreciates what Representative Dyson is trying to accomplish, but the situation is that we're trying to take what he would call very unconstitutional law and try to make it a little more constitutional. He said he doesn't think the committee is helping that process by throwing in additional serious constitutional questions. CHAIR JAMES stated she isn't convinced that making the effective date different is the way to fix the bill. Number 0590 SENATOR MILLER said another way to approach the problem is to go ahead and move the bill out of committee. CHAIR JAMES indicated it could be addressed in the Rules Committee. SENATOR MILLER said it could be changed in Rules or on the floor where there would be a committee of the whole. He noted it would probably be a couple of days before the bill went to the floor. Number 0610 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he certainly has no guarantees that anyone would ever propose such a thing in the Rules Committee. CHAIR JAMES said Representative Dyson could take it to Rules himself or it could be done on the floor. Number 0627 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to move the bill out of committee. Number 0585 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he believes Representative Dyson's concerns were legitimate. The question is a legal question (indisc.) about his amendment are also significant. He stated he believes it is the responsibility of the committee to answer questions before the bill is moved. Number 0647 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "Madam Chair, I think that the suggestion to move this bill to the next committee - that would allow us two things. It would allow us to get an answer to the title question so that we avoid potential problems in the future and it would allow Representative Dyson to do the legal research necessary to find out whether (indisc.)." REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said, "There must be a fund-raiser coming up for the Governor between now and the next meeting." Number 0668 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to move CSSB 275, Version L, out of the House State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal notes. CHAIR JAMES said, "I'll tell you one reason why we're not going to hear this on Saturday. We've been here an hour and ten minutes, we have accomplished very, very little." Number 0685 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected to moving the bill. He said, "Maybe it's the fact that I've losing in too many 28 to 12 votes, but there is a certain amount of cynicism increase (indisc.) after that. And comments such as the one that Representative Hodgins just made merely exacerbates that cynicism about this bill. And I want to commend Representative Vezey for being candid enough to point out that the one who's truly impacted - one of the people truly impacted by this bill is the Governor. I mean if this is truly a legitimate concern, and I understand there is legitimate philosophical concerns here -- political policy questions, then don't make an immediate effective date, but that's not what we're doing. We are -- in attempting to address all the concerns of the public, we are merely giving them reason to have suspicions about what we do just by the real process as to how this bill is moving and the effective date." Number 0730 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he also objected to the legislation moving. He said, "My objection is to the comments on how much time we've spent on this and I think one of the reasons we spent an hour and ten minutes on this bill is because there have been questions asked that can't be answered. And I think this is bad form to move a bill when there is a significant legal question out there. I think it's bad (indisc.) to move the bill. A member of the committee has a legal question that may, or may not, effect the amendment that they want to make. A delay of two days, I doubt very much it's going to allow any fund-raisers to be held." Number 0760 SENATOR MILLER said, "I understand that Representative Berkowitz maybe being a little upset, but at the same time, I believe in the statement he's (indisc.) my motives for introducing the bill. And I'm a little bit offended by that. I've been around in this system long enough to know (indisc.) government. I've sat under a lot of different administrations here, both Republican and - actually no Republicans to AIP (Alaskan Independence Party) anyway and a Democratic. As I stated earlier, this is good public policy no matter who is in the Governor's chair. I'm a little bit offended that he (indisc.) my motives for the introduction of this bill to begin with, but I'm sure that was just (indisc.). CHAIR JAMES told Representative Dyson if he wishes to make an amendment, she would allow him to. Number 0807 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he would offer an amendment that on page 3, line 24, Section 3, to remove the "." and add the words, "for incumbent and May 15, 1998, for non-incumbent of state offices." He noted he doesn't know whether it should be "in state offices" or "of state offices". He suggested, "state office incumbents." CHAIR JAMES suggested using "for state office who holds a state office." Chair James said it will be called a conceptual amendment. CHAIR JAMES reiterated the conceptual amendment. After "." in Section 3, line 24, page 3, it should say, "effective immediately for incumbents", and "effective on May 15, 1998, for candidates for state office who..." Number 0888 MS. PARKER said if the effect of the amendment to have it immediate for incumbents, the language should be, "This Act takes effect immediately under AS 01.10.070(c) for candidates for re-election -- for elections of state office who are currently serving elective state office." Number 0909 CHAIR JAMES stated, "My understanding is that the public want to have non-incumbents have an up on incumbents and that it would be my belief that the public would prefer -- they don't want people running that are -- current candidates to be running. Quite frankly, those people who are contributing to the Governor's campaign I think are probably pretty happy about it. Those who would prefer not to contribute are not happy. It is a problem out there. I will agree to that, but I think what this does is it only fixes it for this year and then we're right back to the same thing where incumbents can't raise during the legislative session. So for that, that doesn't satisfy my need -- Representative Vezey." Number 0948 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "The redeeming characteristic of what we're trying to do here is that we treat everyone equally -- that we are not creating two classes of citizenship because I don't think any court in the country, state or federal level, would uphold. And I'd adhere to that principle. I don't think we have two classes of citizens here. If we try to set up a bi-class procedure as who can run for office on what ground, I think at the very best all we can hope to do is trip and fall into a bottomless cavern. I just don't know any alternatives we have other than trying to keep a very level playing field with one class of citizen." Number 0998 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said Representative Vezey's point is well taken. He said what he hopes the amendment will do is eliminate the problem he has regarding the timing. He referred to Wayne Ross and said he hopes the amendment eliminates the problem of changing the rules for him. He said, "It does accomplish -- you know, keeps the incumbents being subject to using their office for raising money or being pressured - appear to be pressured to do it. So the fact that it leaves that two stage thing in place after the fifteenth of May is a problem. I believe it's going to be overturned, maybe even before the end of this session by the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) suit which has lots of merit. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated he objects to the amendment. Number 1061 A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Elton, Dyson and Hodgins voted in favor of adopting the amendment. Representatives Vezey, James and Berkowitz voted against adopting the amendment. So the conceptual amendment failed to be adopted. Number 1102 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to move CSSB 275, Version L, out of the House State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations and with the attached fiscal notes. He said, "I would certainly accept and agree with Representative Dyson that if there is some mechanism for doing this in Rules and on the floor, I would certainly support him in trying to do what he just did with this amendment." CHAIR JAMES asked if there is an objection to moving the legislation. Number 1130 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected. He said, "As President Miller indicated that I didn't change his motives. I also said that I thought there was legitimate policy questions to this bill and I appreciated him coming forward. As was said that the perception with the immediate effective date is that we're playing politics and I'm going to stand by that statement." A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Hodgins, Vezey and James voted in favor of moving the bill out of committee. Representatives Elton, Berkowitz and Dyson voted against moving the bill out of committee. So CSSB 275(STA) failed to move out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee. CSSB 275(STA) - FUND RAISING: GOV; LT. GOV; & CANDIDATES REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said, "I would like to move to reconsider my vote on CSSB 275(STA)." Number 0155 CHAIR JAMES stated there is a motion to reconsider the vote on CSSB 275(STA). She asked if there is an objection to the motion. There being no objection, the bill was before the committee again. Number 0210 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said, "Representatives Elton and Berkowitz, I have asked the Chair to move to reconsider the vote on SB 275 and there wasn't an objection to that." CHAIR JAMES stated, "And so now the bill is on the table before us to be moved." She asked if there was an objection. Number 0234 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Hodgins, Vezey, Dyson and James voted in favor of moving the bill. Representatives Elton and Berkowitz voted against moving the bill. So CSSB 275(STA) moved out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|