Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 106
03/06/2007 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB38 | |
| HB6 | |
| HB3 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 38 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 171 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 38-IMPROPER CONTRIBUTIONS TO LEGISLATORS 8:05:00 AM CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 38, "An Act relating to legislators and candidates for the legislature and to certain campaign contributions made in exchange for certain agreements." REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for HB 38, Version 25-LS0219\K, Luckhaupt, 3/5/07, as a work draft. 8:05:20 AM REPRESENTATIVES ROSES and JOHNSON objected. 8:05:35 AM REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, as joint prime sponsor of HB 38, reviewed the changes made in Version K. He said that currently, political campaign contributions "can't constitute bribery." He directed attention to the added language on [page 1, lines 7-9 of Version K], which would change that law to say: unless the contribution is made or received in exchange for an agreement to alter an elected official's or candidate's vote or position on a legislative, statewide, or municipal matter REPRESENTATIVE GARA specified that giving someone a campaign contribution because he/she already supports a cause believed in by the contributor is not illegal and would not be under this change. 8:07:36 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to Representative Coghill, stated that under criminal law, when a person purposely [changes his/her vote or shifts to another cause] in exchange for a contribution, and has done so knowingly, there is an understanding between both parties that "I'm giving you the money and you're changing your position." He said he tried to keep the language narrow. 8:09:14 AM CHAIR LYNN asked Representative Gara to confirm that a legitimate change in view point on the part of a candidate would not be considered criminal. REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded that it would not, because there would not be an understanding between two parties regarding the change of view point. 8:10:27 AM REPRESENTATIVE DOLL suggested having proof of such an interchange would be helpful during prosecution. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said yes, but he added that prosecution would not be easy. He relayed that it may be necessary to "have some people on wire" or turning on other people. In response to a question from Chair Lynn, he said holding a fundraiser would follow the same guideline; if the candidate agreed to change his/her position upon accepting money to hold the fundraiser, then that would be a crime. Upon further reflection, he added: That's interesting. I think this just criminalizes the contribution. So, I suppose if somebody was going to throw a fundraiser for you, well they're probably going to donate to you too, but I suppose they wouldn't be prosecuted under this if they organized the fundraiser and didn't contribute any in-kind donations or something, because there has to be a contribution. CHAIR LYNN said, "So, holding the fundraiser would not be a contribution in kind. You hire the room, you get the hors d'oeuvres. ... That's a contribution in kind, basically." REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that would be a contribution and would count. He said, "I suppose you could try and avoid this by holding the fundraiser and not donating a single penny in anything. I hadn't thought about that, honestly." He said the committee may want to think about including fundraisers in its discussion of the bill. CHAIR LYNN said that issue could be considered in the next committee of referral. REPRESENTATIVE GARA suggested that the term contribution include holding fundraisers. 8:13:06 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said the concept of prosecuting both the giver and the receiver may be difficult but "important to try." He stated concern regarding candidates' changing their minds and [that being perceived as being the direct reaction to] a contributor that at any time in the past had an influence over that candidate. He offered his understanding that Representative Gara is saying that it is not the altering of a [candidate's] position that is the problem, but rather it is the agreement that is made that is the problem. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said, "Right." REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated: ... In the nine years I've been down here, I've actually altered my position on a couple things. And it might be that somebody who contributed to me might actually have had some influence on me, ... in getting me facts and information. So, I'm concerned; I don't want to make them or me a felon. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he thinks the reason Representative Coghill would not be prosecuted is that he has "never made an agreement to alter" his position. He reiterated that the bill mandates that there must be an intentional agreement between the parties. 8:15:18 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL observed that the level of proof has to be high regarding a class B felony. He stated his support of Version K. 8:16:10 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked what the difference is in federal law compared to the proposed legislation. 8:16:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARA recollected that the federal law is a long- established statute, which was developed by judicial common law and does not "make the crime scene very readily apparent." He said he cannot say what the standard of the federal law is, but he remarked that it "looks different than this" and has been "filled in by court decisions." He said it is not a bribery statute, but is an "improper influence through money statute." He recalled that the wording of the federal statute is not as specific. In response to a follow-up question from Representative Johnson, he said the burden of proof may be less onerous. For example, it is not necessary to prove that [a candidate] changed his/her position. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he would appreciate that comparison to be made in the House Judiciary Standing Committee. 8:18:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL cited AS 11.56.110, which read as follows: Sec. 11.56.110. Receiving a bribe. (a) A public servant commits the crime of receiving a bribe if the public servant (1) solicits a benefit with the intent that the public servant's vote, opinion, judgment, action, decision, or exercise of discretion as a public servant will be influenced; or (2) accepts or agrees to accept a benefit upon an agreement or understanding that the public servant's vote, opinion, judgment, action, decision, or exercise of discretion as a public servant will be influenced. (b) Receiving a bribe is a class B felony. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said the language of paragraph (1) is broad. He said he does agree that it should be a felony if people exchange votes for dollars. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked that the House Judiciary Standing Committee address the time frame between the contribution and the action. He said that time frame causes him concern, because he sees opportunity for abuse. He related that he doesn't want there to be opportunity a couple years down the line for someone to say, "Ah, ... I gave him money and he voted the way I wanted him to," which could start an investigation six months before an election, for example. REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded that he is not concerned about that, because this just relates to criminal investigations; it's not like an ethics complaint. He said there would be no indictment without proof. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said there are search warrants issued before anyone is notified. He stated that he just wants to avoid a witch hunt. 8:23:02 AM CHAIR LYNN said he thinks the committee is moving in the right direction. 8:23:30 AM REPRESENTATIVES JOHNSON and ROSES removed their objections to adopting Version K as a work draft. There being no further objection, Version K was before the committee. 8:23:33 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report CSHB 38, Version 25- LS0219\K, Luckhaupt, 3/5/07, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 38(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee. The committee took an at-ease from 8:23:51 AM to 8:26:56 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|