Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
02/14/2012 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB190 | |
| HJR33 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HJR 33-AMEND U.S. CONST RE CAMPAIGN MONEY
8:46:32 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the final order of business was HOUSE
JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 33, Urging the United States Congress and
the President of the United States to work to amend the
Constitution of the United States to prohibit corporations,
unions, and individuals from making unlimited independent
expenditures supporting or opposing candidates for public
office.
8:46:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, presented HJR
33 as sponsor. He stated that elections should be decided based
on ideas and how hard a candidate works; however, he said since
[the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on] Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission, 180S. Ct.876(2010) ("Citizens United"),
elections have been influenced more and more by outside money.
He said Citizens United affects independent expenditures - money
"not coordinated with a candidate" but spent in support of or
opposition to a candidate. He gave examples of large sums of
money being given by individuals and corporations to influence
the outcome of elections. Representative Gara said there used
to be limits on campaign contributions and independent
expenditures, but currently the following is allowed: unlimited
independent expenditures from corporations, unions, and groups,
and unlimited political expenditures from outside groups.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said the intent of HJR 33 is to rally other
states to pass resolutions for Congress to propose a
constitutional amendment to place a limit on outside money, so
that people will have a clearer voice on the local level. He
said the amount of money spent on independent expenditures rose
from $37 million in 2006 to $210 million in 2010.
8:50:06 AM
CHAIR LYNN offered his understanding that there is a limit to
what an individual and a political action committee (PAC) may
contribute to his campaign, but no limit to what a "super PAC"
may contribute [in support of or in opposition to an issue].
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that is right. He said candidates in
Alaska have a little more protection because the State of Alaska
passed a disclosure law a couple of years ago.
CHAIR LYNN offered his understanding that the state's disclosure
law requires the name of the top three contributors in a super
PAC to be disclosed. He remarked that no matter how good a
candidate's campaign, a million dollars spent against that
campaign can end it.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that is true. He said more
importantly, people are represented in Congress on the big
issues of the nation, and when people are allowed to influence
elections with unlimited money, "the money decides who wins the
elections." He reiterated that a campaign should be won by
ideas rather than by money.
8:53:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to Chair Lynn, said
individuals, corporations, unions, and environmental groups, and
other interest groups are now allowed to make unlimited
independent expenditures. He explained that the court now
considers groups to be persons and has decided that the campaign
contributions of individuals cannot be limited. He said, "If
all 50 states have some different idea on how they should limit
the amount of money, it will still send the message to Congress
that the amount of money has gone out of control."
8:56:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to Representative Keller, said
prior to Citizens United, corporations and unions in Alaska and
many other states were limited on what they could donate. Also
prior to Citizens United, he relayed, there was a ruling in
Buckley v. Vallejo, in which individuals could make unlimited
contributions for independent expenditures. He reiterated that
ideas, not money, should be the focus. He opined that people
should have their voice in the political system. In response to
Representative Keller, he said he thinks that federal disclosure
requirements are weak, but they could be stronger if Congress
made them so. He noted that Congress almost passed a law
similar to the aforementioned disclosure law of Alaska, but it
failed by one vote. He said part of the [U.S. Supreme Court]
decision allowed the government to require disclosures, but the
level of government was not defined.
8:58:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said there are two issues before the
committee: free speech rights and [campaign contribution]
limits. She opined that [HJR 33] is "a very poor solution to a
very complex problem." She said there are other solutions, for
example, asking all the other states to "do what Alaska has
done." She indicated that the other options could be tried
rather than asking for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
9:00:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said requiring disclosure will not stop the
flood of money that comes into the political system. He said
there is no support in the federal government for a disclosure
law. He stated that the unlimited expenditure of money cannot
be stopped without an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON ventured that any advertising is
considered negative by some and not by others. She talked about
targeting the media to require them to state only facts instead
of "slanting things the way they do." She said, "I just think
that this is the wrong way to go about doing what you want to
do."
9:02:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to [page 2, lines 8-
10], which read as follows:
WHEREAS, while not addressed by the United States
Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, unlimited
independent expenditures made by individuals also
distort the political process and ability of all
American citizens to have an equal voice in
government;
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said corporations have the sole duty to
make money; therefore, their expenditures are based on their
duty to shareholders, which is a different matter than the free
speech of an individual. He said he is concerned that the
sponsor has wrapped these two issues together. He asked the
bill sponsor if he has considered excluding individuals from the
bill language.
9:05:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded that individuals were allowed to
make unlimited independent expenditures based on a case prior to
Citizens United. He said he understands Representative Seaton's
point, but reemphasized that money is money, and when someone
dumps $5 to $10 million into a campaign, he/she makes other
people's voices small. He said he would be thrilled if group
and corporation contributions were limited to what they were
prior to Citizens United, so he could accept the removal of
individuals, if that was the wish of the committee.
9:06:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN pointed out that the media is owned by
corporations, and their bottom line is to sell papers. He said
he does not agree that "this is an improper way to voice our
opinion," although he said he does not agree with it.
9:09:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN directed attention to language on page
1, lines 6-8, which read as follows:
WHEREAS a vast majority of Americans recognize
that the influence of large contributions by
corporations, wealthy individuals, and organizations
harms the ability of average citizens to have a voice
in their own government, and;
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN then pointed to language on page 2,
lines 8-10, which read as follows:
WHEREAS, while not addressed by the United States
Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, unlimited
independent expenditures made by individuals also
distort the political process and ability of all
American citizens to have an equal voice in
government;
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN proffered that large independent
expenditures do not affect his ability to cast his individual
vote.
9:10:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said America lives under laws decided by
U.S. Congress and the President, and big money put into special
interests gets the attention of Congress. In response to
Representative Johansen, he said there is a lot of money on both
sides of the Pebble Mine issue, but focus of HJR 33 is limited
to independent expenditures for or against candidates.
9:11:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN explained that he brought up the Pebble
Mine advertising as an example of millions of dollars being
spent to bombard people with messages. He offered his
understanding that the sponsor is saying that this kind of
expenditure overwhelms the ability of the individual voter to
retain his/her single perspective and "waters down an
individual's vote."
9:14:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked if groups like the American
Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-
CIO) and the National Education Association (NEA) would be
included under HJR 33.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said unions would be included, no matter
their ideology, because large independent expenditures distort
the political process.
9:15:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN noted that every "WHEREAS" portion of
the proposed joint resolution [that mentions corporations and
individuals] also mentions unions, with the exception of one:
the first "WHEREAS" on page 1, lines 6-8 [text provided
previously]. He said he would like unions included in every
"WHEREAS" instead of, or in addition to, using the word
"organizations".
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to the chair, said he would
accept an amendment to that effect.
9:17:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN directed attention to the second
"WHEREAS", on page 1, lines 9-12, which read as follows:
WHEREAS the narrow five to four decision of the
United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010),
allows corporations and unions to make unlimited
independent expenditures supporting or opposing a
candidate for public office; and
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he would like the word "narrow"
removed, because he said it implies "we're really close to
flipping it."
9:18:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to Representative P.
Wilson's previous comment, explained that the basis for Citizens
United was the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the
only option that could have an effect on that decision would be
to amend the Bill of Rights. He further commented that the
media enjoys broad personal freedom.
9:20:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to Representative Keller, said
he looked for information showing what affect Citizens United
has had on Alaska, but was unable to compile them. He said his
biggest concern is the national scene. In response to a follow-
up question, he offered his belief that [since the Citizens
United decision, he has seen more independent expenditures made
in campaign fliers.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he thinks the disclosure at the
bottom of flier is sufficient.
CHAIR LYNN pointed out that it is not always apparent by the
name on bottom of the flier who the people behind the name are.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said that is a good point. He said there
are "six million corporations out there," and he expressed
concern that the proposed resolution would target them all.
9:23:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON remarked that even if the Constitution
is changed, newspaper corporations would still be able to "slant
things" without spending a lot of money to do so. She
reiterated that she thinks the proposed resolution is the wrong
way to address the issue.
CHAIR LYNN talked about the ability of a newspaper to put out
totally accurate information, but with a slant.
9:24:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that in both the title of HJR 33 and
the second "WHEREAS" portion on page 1, lines 9-12 [text
provided previously], the words, "supporting or opposing
candidates for public office" appear; however, those words do
not appear in the "BE IT RESOLVED" portion, on page 2, lines 11-
14, which read as follows:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature
urges the United States Congress and the President of
the United States to work across party lines to
propose a constitutional amendment to prohibit
corporations, unions, and individuals from making
unlimited independent expenditures.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his understanding that the sponsor
said HJR 33 is addressing expenditures supporting or opposing
candidates for office, not broad topics or "other expenditures
in the public arena." He said the resolve does not support that
idea, and asked the bill sponsor if he is comfortable with
adding "supporting or opposing candidates for public office" in
the "BE IT RESOLVED" part of the joint resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he believes "that's what independent
expenditures means," but said he would have no problem if that
language was added.
9:26:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, regarding the language on page 1,
lines 6-8 [text provided previously], said she thinks stating
that "the ability of average citizens to have a voice in their
own government" would be harmed is an insult. She opined that
the average citizen is "smart enough to realize what's going on
or, at least, to make ... [his/her] own decision." She said she
thinks the average citizen has a voice in government, and what
"they" are doing does not change that.
9:27:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded that the only reason that people
flood the airways with political advertisements is that they
effectively influence voters. He said he does not think it is
derogatory to say that most people don't have the time to look
into all the issues and, thus, get much of their information
through political advertisements. He said he is not always
happy with the media, but thinks that trying to regulate it
would cause trouble.
CHAIR LYNN commented that many people will vote for the
candidate they last saw in an advertisement on the way to the
polling place.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON posited that because the Citizens
United decision was made less than two years ago, it is too soon
to make statements based on the effect of that decision.
9:30:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to Representative Gruenberg,
clarified that the definition of independent expenditures is
"money used by an outside group to help elect or defeat a
candidate." He said if the committee chooses to add language to
the bill regarding money spent on political issues, he would not
cause him "a lot of heartache"; however, he said that issue is
not what Citizens United was about.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested including "a modifier phrase
to refer to political candidate phrases," because most people
will not understand the limited definition of "independent
expenditure".
9:34:34 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that he would begin public testimony.
9:34:52 AM
SCOTT ERIC SHAW, testifying on behalf of himself, opined that
HJR 33 is a step toward ridding elections of corruption. He
said it is clear to him that corporations are intangible
entities, not persons, and that money is property, not speech.
He offered his understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court has
"recommended that we do amend the First Amendment."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked Mr. Shaw if he feels the same way
about unions and environmental groups as he does corporations.
MR. SHAW answered yes.
9:36:27 AM
PATRICK KOIVISTO, testifying on behalf of himself, stated that
he thinks the population of Alaska is so low that [HJR 33] could
help the state project the voices of Alaskans. He echoed the
remarks of the sponsor regarding the effect of the media on
votes. He indicated that media influenced the outcome of the
past election race between Scott Adams and now U.S. Senator Lisa
Murkowski. He opined that removing "individuals" would
undermine the proposed joint resolution.
9:38:31 AM
ROBYN LAUSTER testified on behalf of Move to Amend Anchorage.
She stated that since the Citizens United decision, the volume
of advertisements paid for by outside groups has increased by
over 1,600 percent, and the spending on those advertisements by
those groups has increased by nearly 1,300 percent. She said
super-PACs, corporations, unions, and individuals spending
nearly unlimited funds on elections skew the results of those
elections and undermine democracy.
MS. LAUSTER said this issue is non-partisan; it is about [trying
to have] a fair elections system. She said advertising is not
always truthful. She stated that without a reversal of the
Citizens United ruling, it will be impossible to pass laws
regulating elections to correct these injustices. She posited
that by law, corporations are required to put their bottom line
first, which means they probably do not consider the public
good.
MS. LAUSTER said she believes in a government "of the people, by
the people, and for the people." She stated that the current
situation of corporate personhood granted by the court has
positioned government-created entities to have greater power
than the sovereign citizens of the U.S., and an amendment to the
U.S. Constitution is necessary. She said Move to Amend
Anchorage supports HJR 33 and urges the committee to move it
out. She noted that she had brought a letter [dated 2/9/12,
included in the committee packet] in support of HJR 33, signed
by twelve [Move to Amend Anchorage] members.
9:40:53 AM
ROBERT BUCH, noted that he was a former representative in the
Alaska State Legislature. He indicated that the impetus for
Citizens United started in the 1800s, and what began then ended
with corporations being determined to secure protection under
the First Amendment. He relayed another result of the Citizens
United decision was that independent expenditures are now
protected under the First Amendment; therefore, money is now
"equated to free speech." In response to a previous remark by
Representative P. Wilson, he said there are other methods to
address this issue being considered by some states; however, he
said he thinks HJR 33 is an appropriate vehicle to bring
information to the public.
MR. BUCH quoted a book entitled, The Road to the Whitehouse, as
follows: "Ninety-four percent of those with the most money were
elected to the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Congress." He stated
that when only those with money are elected to office, then "all
of us" are subject to where that money is directed. He said a
great many people in the country are dissatisfied. Mr. Buch
stated that corporations are not people - they don't have
feelings - but they have been given an unlimited way to
influence elections. He said, for example, that Mitt Romney and
Rick Santorum each have a key person backing them financially.
He said this issue is not one-sided; both parties "will be
taking advantage of this" and "those in the middle class are
being crushed."
MR. BUCH relayed that a web site, opensecrets.org, shows that
corporate political contributions in 2012 totaled
$1,317,977,729, whereas [contributions made by] unions totaled
less than 10 percent of that amount, at $92,355.686. He stated
that unions have the same ability, but do not have the same
availability of cash as corporations do; therefore, the
influence of unions is not as great as that of corporations. In
response to a question from the chair, he confirmed that he is
part of Move to Amend Anchorage.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he does not agree with Mr. Buch's
comment that corporations have been given an unlimited way to
influence. He indicated that could be true only if one presumes
that voters are "too dumb to be able to follow the money." He
said there are disclosure laws in place.
9:47:56 AM
MR. BUCH asked Representative Keller to consider what the public
is supposed to learn if only one view is put forth. He said
that is what is happening. He said this issue affects federal,
state, and local elections.
9:49:28 AM
MR. BUCH, in response to Representative Johansen, indicated that
he does not know who funds opensecrets.org. In response to a
follow-up question, he said there is no measure of what the
advertising represents; "they" are not held to any standards.
The public may or may not be aware of that, but they are still
influenced by that advertising. In response to a final question
from Representative Johansen, he said he does not discriminate
between one corporation and another.
9:52:59 AM
CHRISTINA MOUNCE testified on behalf of Move to Amend Juneau.
She explained that there are many chapters of Move to Amend
around the state, as well as across the nation. She said the
mission of Move to Amend is to amend the U.S. Constitution to
limit the amount of money corporations can spend on elections.
Currently, she said, the political climate is one in which
voters are bombarded by commercials and advertising either
supporting one candidate or putting down another. Following the
Citizens United decision, she related, nearly $4 billion was
spent during the 2010 Congressional Election, completely
eclipsing the $1 billion spent prior to the Citizens United
decision. She reported that according to the Center For
Responsible Politics, in the congressional races of 2010, the
candidates who spent the most money on their campaigns won 85
percent of the House seats and 83 percent of the Senate seats.
She said Citizens United has given politicians with the most
corporate support the upper hand in elections. She said anyone
can vote and anyone can run for office; however, currently the
playing field is not even. She stated, "By allowing unlimited
campaign contributions, the political system has essentially
been rigged against hard working Americans who can't afford to
compete with for-profit corporations, unions, special interest
groups, and wealthy individuals." She said passing HJR 33 would
show Alaska to be a state whose representatives support fair
campaigns and are dedicated to representing the average
American. In response to Chair Lynn, she offered her
understanding that there is no one organizational force behind
the Move to Amend groups. She said she organizes the group in
Juneau.
9:56:09 AM
PATRICE LEE, testifying on behalf of herself, said she would
like the committee to not get bogged down by details regarding
what "average citizen" means and how much influence media has or
does not have. She said the endless amount of money being spent
could be put to better use supporting hospitals and schools, for
example. She said, "I'd just like to see us get back to
something that makes more sense."
9:58:33 AM
LARRY HURLOCK testified on behalf of the Hurlock Family Trust in
support of HJR 33. He said he thinks harm is done to the
investor in his/her role as a citizen. He said he expects
investors to spend their time on production, promotion, and
distribution, not to act as proxy on matters of governmental
sovereignty, especially because modern corporations are "captive
of management due to dilution of the ownership of corporate
stock and shares." He said it bothers him that large companies
are able to hide expenditures from their shareholders. He
quoted U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy as stating,
"Shareholders can determine whether the corporation's political
speech advances the corporation's interest in making profits."
He used Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) as an example of
disclosure. He mentioned a shareholder proposal and read from
the ADM Board's "proxy against the resolution" as follows:
In addition to the disclosures mandated by law, ADM
voluntarily reports the aggregate amounts of ADM's
contribution to political parties and candidates.
MR. HURLOCK said disclosures are hidden in the aggregate; they
are hidden in plain view. He said the average person does not
know what his/her company spends on anything. He said he is
competent on the computer, but after 15 minutes searching, could
not find aggregate disclosure on ADM's web site. He said, "I
find this very objectionable in my role as a citizen investor."
10:03:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN offered his understanding that Move to
Amend is a group, which is narrowly focused on making the point
that corporations can make unlimited expenditures, and it does
not address any other part of the ruling by the U.S. Supreme
Court.
10:03:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said Mr. Hurlock has "hit the nail on
the head," and he said he would like him to come back before the
committee the next time HJR 33 is heard.
10:04:49 AM
[HJR 33 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 15 HB190SS-DOR-PFD-02-07-12.pdf |
HSTA 2/14/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |
| 16 HB 190 Ten Year Numbers Memo.pdf |
HSTA 2/14/2012 8:00:00 AM SSTA 4/12/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |