Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 106
03/20/2008 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB353 | |
| HB261 | |
| HB266 | |
| HB366 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 366 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 412 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HCR 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 402 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 353 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 261 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 266 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 261-PUBLICALLY FINANCED ELECTIONS 8:28:19 AM CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business was SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 261, "An Act establishing a program of public funding for the financing of election campaigns of candidates for state elected offices, to be known as the Clean Elections Act." [Before the committee as a work draft, adopted on 3/15/08, was committee substitute (CS) for SSHB 261, Version 25-LS0929\M, Bullard, 2/21/08.] 8:28:22 AM CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony. 8:28:43 AM SUZANNE HANCOCK, Staff, Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska State Legislature, testified during the hearing on SSHB 261 on behalf of Representative LeDoux, prime sponsor. For the benefit of Chair Lynn, who had been absent during previous meetings' discussions of SSHB 261, she reviewed the bill sponsor's involvement at those meetings. 8:29:46 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he was lukewarm on the proposed bill until a couple days ago when a special interest group in Virginia ran an add in Anchorage with his name in it that claimed he is a corrupt legislator because of a "no recommendation" vote he made on a bill. He said there is not a lot he can do about it. He spoke of the possibility of not being able to fight off a well-funded group with public funds and the ability of a group to raise money to attack an individual. He remarked, "If they're attacking me for a vote I haven't made, imagine what they're going to do for the votes I have made." He offered his understanding that the group in Virginia has not registered with the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) and there is no way to trace where its money comes from. He clarified: Where my opposition to this bill was slight before, it is now become vehement. I ..., and the people that support my points of views, need the ability to assist me in fighting this outside attack, and I don't see any other way we can do it with public funds. And unless this bill takes a serious turn and either eliminates third-party expenditures or seriously curtails third-party expenditures, there's no way I can even support it. CHAIR LYNN said the issue to which Representative Johnson referred is related to aerial wolf hunting and has absolutely nothing to do with "these other issues." 8:32:58 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said the bill does address the issue that Representative Johnson brought up. He added, "Quite frankly, the way it addresses it is even scarier than the process." He continued: If an independent expenditure occurs in a campaign, and you feel as the candidate - and you are participating in the Clean Elections process - that you have been wronged, you have the ability to appeal to the ... administrator of the Clean Elections process, and require them within two days to determine whether or not you've been wronged by this third-party expenditure. If indeed the determination is that you have been, then they have to match whatever amount of money was spent to attack you or to support the candidate running against you, up to three times the allowable ... expenditure for the year. Well, what is an allowable expenditure for the year? In the primary [election] year, it's $17,600. So, three times that would be $52,800 that could be matched to you as a candidate if you participate in the Clean Elections process, because third-party candidates or [political action committees] (PACs) are working against you or for the candidate that is opposing you. That's for the primary. In the general [election] it's three times $26,400, which is $79,200. So, ... are the citizens of this state ready to put their permanent fund dividends at risk to fund political campaigns? Because I can tell you right now, if you take $79,200 and $52,800, ... that's over $130,000. If we have 50 ... candidates running potentially every year. What's the limit? I mean, where does this go? REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said he has seen the ad to which Representative Johnson referred, and although it does not mention his own name, it just as easily could have, since he sits on the same committee and passed the same bill out of committee. He stated that if he were part of a Clean Elections process and saw that the entire legislature had been called corrupt, he would go to the administrator and say, "I have been wronged by this ad; I need to defend myself; this is an expenditure that qualifies; I need the matching fund." 8:35:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated that the proposed bill does not address in-kind contributions, and he questioned how the Clean Elections process would deal with that issue. He emphasized that there are numerous issues of concern that he will state for the record if the bill continues to move forward. He said the objective of the bill has not worked in other states that have tried Clean Elections. There have been states that have passed a Clean Elections Act only to repeal it, and others funded Clean Elections, then withdrew the funding. He mentioned California's Proposition 89, regarding Clean Elections, which was failed by 75 percent of those who voted. REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated that Clean Elections is a serious issue that has the potential to be costly to the state and to totally revamp the way Alaska's elections system works. He said he thinks the committee should be examining every single report available regarding Clean Elections to determine whether the information is appropriate and whether or not amendments need to be made to the bill. He explained that although there are elements of the bill that are good and try to reestablish confidence of the public in the political process, the bill will actually unravel the whole process and will not meet its own objective. 8:37:53 AM CHAIR LYNN noted that the bill had been amended to remove the reference to Clean Elections from title, and now the title uses the term, "public funding of elections". 8:38:38 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN stated his opposition to SSHB 261. 8:39:24 AM REPRESENTATIVE DOLL expressed appreciation for the comments that had been made, but said she thinks the issue is one that needs discussing and, thus, should make it to the House floor. She stated support for SSHB 261. 8:40:18 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES concurred with Representative Doll's remark that the bill needs lots of discussion, but said that will not happen on the House floor in a substantive manner without delving into the aforementioned reports. He offered further details. 8:42:12 AM REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said she would support holding the bill if such a discussion would be held. CHAIR LYNN said because of the 90-day session, there is probably not the time available to have this discussion. 8:43:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he appreciates what Representative Roses said about public action committees. He said he does not think the bill addresses "the kind of attack that's going on against us right now," which is why he does not support the proposed legislation. 8:44:10 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that SSHB 261 would be heard next by the House Judiciary Standing Committee and the House Finance Committee, so there would be plenty of time to discuss the issues. 8:44:26 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report the committee substitute (CS) for SSHB 261, Version 25-LS0929\M, Bullard/2/21/08, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. 8:44:32 AM REPRESENTATIVES ROSES, JOHNSON, and COGHILL objected. 8:44:52 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said he realizes that the legislature is in a 90-day session and the committee has limited scheduled meeting times; however, he indicated that he would be willing to schedule additional meeting times to give time for adequate discussion of the bill. He offered to head a public forum. CHAIR LYNN indicated the need to hold Saturday meetings because of the 90-day session. REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said he also appreciates the fact that the bill is scheduled to be heard by two other House committees. He stated that when a bill is sent to a committee on which he sits, he hopes that the prior committee did a good job working on the bill before passing it on, rather than sending it on in fragments, hoping that the next committee will put it back together. He said he thinks the committee is rushing the process and using the 90-day session as an excuse. He stated, "I feel like we want to move this on because it has some controversy connected to it. I feel like we're moving it on because it's a bill that has a lot of difficulty and will garner a tremendous amount of attention and support. That's exactly why I can't move it out of this committee." 8:47:16 AM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg, Doll, and Lynn voted in favor of moving CSSSHB 261, Version 25- LS0929\M, Bullard, 2/21/08 out of committee. Representatives Roses, Coghill, Johansen, and Johnson voted against it. Therefore, Version M failed to move out of committee by a vote of 3-4.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|