Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
02/23/2012 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR33 | |
| HR10 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HJR 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HJR 33-AMEND U.S. CONST RE CAMPAIGN MONEY
8:10:21 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first 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.
8:10:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, presented HJR
33 as sponsor. He explained the changes that would be made
under the proposed committee substitute (CS), Version 27-
LS1231\I, Bullard, 2/16/12. He said that in response to
Representatives Seaton and Gruenberg, the words "supporting or
opposing candidates for public office" appear following
"expenditures", on page 2, lines 12-13, as well as in the bill
title. He related that in response to Representative Johansen,
the word "unions" was added following the word "corporations",
on page 1, line 7. He said the reference to "unlimited
expenditures by individuals" was deleted, so that under Version
I, the focus is on the Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission, 180S. Ct.876(2010) ("Citizens United") case, which
related to unlimited contributions by corporations, unions, and
other organizations.
CHAIR LYNN interjected that [corporations, unions, and other
organizations] were defined as "persons" by the U.S. Supreme
Court.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA stated his personal belief that unlimited
contributions by individuals should be regulated; however, he
said he thinks the committee made "a fine call" by limiting HJR
33 to a Citizens United resolution. He noted that he fixed "a
typographical error" on page 1, line 13, to clarify that before
the Citizens United ruling, states and Congress had the option
to ban unlimited independent expenditures from corporations and
unions.
8:13:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), Version 27-LS1231\I, Bullard, 2/16/12, as a
work draft. There being no objection, Version I was before the
committee.
8:13:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA opined that corporations and unions should
not be considered "persons" for the sake of elections, and
society should be able to limit the amount of expenditures that
flood into political campaigns. He relayed that on the federal
level, "the candidate with the most money wins ... 95 percent of
the time."
CHAIR LYNN ventured the same is true on the local level.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA stated that the intent of the proposed
resolution is "to help build a movement nationally for Congress
to amend the Constitution, to reverse the Citizens United
ruling," so that states and Congress have the option to regulate
corporate and union contributions. He said, "I don't see this
as a benefit for either side of the aisle. There are those of
us who are going to be targeted by corporations, there are those
who will be targeted by unions ...." He pointed out that
contributions to candidates are limited. He opined, "The moment
you have ... $500 million of contributions going into a
Presidential campaign from outside sources is the moment you
have less accountability in the political system."
8:16:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to Chair Lynn, confirmed that
HJR 33 would give states the discretion to decide whether to
regulate contributions from corporations and unions. He
conveyed that in the past, Alaska exercised that discretion.
8:17:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to Representative Petersen,
confirmed that HJR 33 is encouraging an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. He said there are two ways to amend the
Constitution, but the only way that has worked in the past is by
a vote of two-thirds of each house of Congress, followed by
ratification by three-quarters of the states.
8:18:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that Representative Gara had
consistently used the word "contribution." He offered his
understanding that Citizens United took away the ability to
limit independent expenditures, but did not affect the ability
to make political campaign contributions to candidates.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA confirmed that is correct. He said Citizens
United opened the floodgates "to unlimited contributions by
corporations, unions, and organizations for independent
expenditures."
8:19:45 AM
CHAIR LYNN offered his understanding that HJR 33 would not
affect contributions from individuals or political action
committees (PACs).
REPRESENTATIVE GARA confirmed that is correct. He said Alaska
currently has strong limits on direct contributions to
candidates.
8:20:47 AM
ARTHUR MARTIN specified that although he is an intern for
Representative P. Wilson, he is testifying on behalf of himself
in opposition to HJR 33. He indicated that he was initially in
favor of the proposed joint resolution until he began
researching information regarding Citizens United. He offered
his understanding that the issue of "corporations being people"
is a separate argument under the Fourteenth Amendment and is not
related to Citizens United. He said Citizens United dealt with
the First Amendment and questioned why corporations and unions,
which held the same First Amendment rights as individuals and
non-profit organizations, did not also share the right to make
independent expenditures.
Mr. Martin opined that there are no facts or data to justify any
of the statements made in HJR 33. He directed attention to page
2 of a handout in the committee packet containing information
published by OpenSecrets.org, to a chart showing total outside
spending for election cycles from 1990 to 2012, and he offered
his understanding that the chart does not show an increase in
independent expenditures made since the Citizens United case.
8:24:01 AM
MR. MARTIN directed attention to the "WHEREAS" clause, on page
2, lines 1-5 of HJR 33, which read as follows:
WHEREAS much of the hundreds of millions of dollars
being spent by corporations, unions, and other
organizations since the ruling of the United States
Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission is going to negative ads, which often
misinform voters rather than lead to a productive
discussion of the states' and nation's most important
issues; and
MR. MARTIN indicated the proposed legislation includes no data
to support the statement that much of the money is going to
negative advertisement. Regarding the issue of misinforming
voters through negative advertisement, Mr. Martin said that
assumes that voters are "empty vessels." He indicated that
people's votes are guided by their religion, family values, and
"where we come from," and he opined that the assertion that
corporations or unions will unduly influence the opinion of
voters is unfounded.
MR. MARTIN questioned what the "harmful effects of Citizen
United", as referred to on page 2, line 6 of HJR 33, would be.
In regard to the proposed amending of the U.S. Constitution, he
questioned which part of the U.S. Constitution would be amended.
Mr. Martin, in response to the "BE IT RESOLVED" portion of the
bill [on page 2, lines 11-14, said it is not the job of the
President to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution;
therefore, he said that language needs to be removed.
8:27:18 AM
MR. MARTIN concluded by asking the committee to consider whether
there really is a problem wherein corporations and unions are
unduly influencing elections and, if there is a problem, is
rewriting the U.S. Constitution the right answer? He urged the
committee not to support HJR 33. He said he provided
alternatives, listed on a handout in the committee packet,
including: requiring shareholders to approve political spending
by their corporations, requiring corporations to disclose money
used to influence public opinion, requiring the chief executive
officer of a corporation that pays for a political commercial to
appear as the sponsor, and strengthening Federal Election
Commission (FEC) regulations to increase transparency and
disclosure. He talked about an idea to have "democracy facts,"
listed, in much the same format as nutritional facts are listed
for food items.
8:30:28 AM
CHAIR LYNN pointed out that opinions are, by nature, subjective
and based on perception of fact. He said, "An ad that is
perceived as negative by one is perceived as truth by the
other." He ventured that as a citizen of the U.S., the
President could submit a request for an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
8:31:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that President Abraham
Lincoln proposed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution.
MR. MARTIN, in response to a question, said he is a student at
the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG complimented Mr. Martin for using non-
traditional logic in his testimony.
8:34:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said although he appreciates Mr. Martin's
proposed solutions, they would be actions of Congress, and the
issue before the committee concerns financial disclosure and
contribution limits that were embedded by the FEC and Congress
but were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
8:35:08 AM
MR. MARTIN responded that the aforementioned alternatives would
not go against the ruling made by the U.S. Supreme Court in
Citizens United, but would "create more oversight on these
corporations."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said corporations are creations of the
individual states, and he offered his understanding that "this"
would require Congress to come in, in federal elections, and
"regulate what individual shareholder actions and ... rights
would be under the varying states' corporation laws."
MR. MARTIN said HJR 33 is asking Congress to alter the U.S.
Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and he said he is
uncomfortable with that. He said corporations are people who
have come together and have certain rights, and he posited that
they are not all "money-seeking." He said Citizen United was
about letting the people in corporations express themselves
under the rights they already have.
8:37:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN offered his understanding that Mr.
Martin said that negative advertising is not effective, and he
ventured that Newt Gingrich would probably disagree. He said
studies have shown that people remember negative advertising
after fewer repetitions than positive advertising. He said,
"They wouldn't be spending tens of millions of dollars on
negative ads if they didn't work." Regarding Mr. Martin's
previous remark that there was not much of an increase between
the 2008 and 2010 [campaign] expenditures, he pointed out that
2008 was a Presidential election year, and Presidential
elections, in general, have more expenditures than non-
presidential years. He said he thinks that by the end of 2012,
the amount of campaign expenditures could easily double, or even
triple, what was spent in 2008.
8:40:00 AM
SHEILA FINKENBINDER stated that although she serves as a staff
member to Representative P. Wilson, she was testifying on behalf
of herself in opposition to HJR 33. She opined that the
language of the "WHEREAS" portions of HJR 33 are "assumptions
that are believed by many but are not based on research that
demonstrates they are true." She said even assuming that the
statements are true, she believes asking Congress to create a
Constitutional amendment is not the best solution.
MS. FINKENBINDER posited that many "reasonable people" would not
agree that the influence of large amounts of money in political
campaigns harms the ability of the average citizen to have a
voice in his/her government, but would instead argue that people
continue to have the ability to weigh the truth in advertising
and make independent decisions regarding how to vote. She
stated that several reports have shown that the Citizens United
decision has had only an incremental effect on campaign finance,
and that large campaign expenditures occurred before the U.S.
Supreme Court decision. Ms. Finkenbinder argued that there has
not been a breakdown in the electoral process "in spite of all
that money." She said whether ads run by corporations are
negative is a debatable point, and she opined that "we" have
managed to "do our own thinking" and have elected "decent and
credible candidates in spite of all this." She indicated that
there has been no evidence to suggest that the corporate media
should have its First Amendment rights infringed.
MS. FINKENBINDER said Congress has had a number of options to
"clean up campaign finance," as previously mentioned by Mr.
Martin, "almost since the very day the Citizens United decision
was made," and she ventured that these options will continue to
be researched and debated until solutions are found.
8:44:08 AM
MS. FINKBINDER argued that amendments to the U.S. Constitution
can be incredibly complicated, controversial, and time-
consuming. Further, she said only 27 Constitutional amendments
have been adopted in the U.S., out of the 10,000 amendments that
have been proposed; therefore, she ventured, the chances of the
amendment proposed under HJR 33 happening are small. She echoed
Mr. Martin's remarks regarding the inappropriateness of asking
the President to initiate the amendment process, and she
indicated that support for this comes from "a document directly
from the government."
8:46:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, regarding the argument that there is no
evidence that the public opposes unlimited corporate and union
contributions, stated that every poll his staff found shows the
opposite to be true, and he said he could provide those polling
results to the committee. Regarding the point made that the
President has no role in the amending of the U.S. Constitution,
he echoed Representative Gruenberg's remark that President
Lincoln was the one who proposed an end to slavery. He said
President Lincoln had to work with Congress, who had to enact
the amendment, and he opined that the President should be active
in those issues in which he/she believes. Regarding the remark
by Mr. Martin that there is no evidence that Citizens United has
had any impact, he echoed the previous comment made by
Representative Petersen that in Presidential election years,
independent expenditures and campaign contributions are much
higher. He said Citizens United was adopted in 2010 - a non-
Presidential year. He said, "Four years before that - 2006 -
independent expenditures rose from $68 million to $304 million.
That's a substantial increase in two, successive non-
Presidential elections." He said "there is every expectation"
that by the end of the 2012 Presidential election, it will be
shown that in Presidential elections, as well, independent
expenditures have increased.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, regarding the suggestion that "we don't
know what corporate contributions had been," explained that is
because corporations don't have to reveal what they spend in
independent expenditures. He said he thinks the same probably
applies to unions. He said, "They put money into fake groups or
groups that have nice names," such as "People for the American
Way," which does not reveal who donors to groups are.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA stated that he thinks the proposed joint
resolution is factually accurate, with some opinion, as is put
in resolutions, and he would "leave it to the committee's
discretion" whether or not to pass HJR 33. He commented that
even though he does not agree with the testimony heard today, it
was well-reasoned. He stated, "It is easier to say somebody's
not telling the truth; its' harder to address somebody's good
argument head on."
8:50:09 AM
CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony.
8:50:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON indicated that since [Citizens United],
campaign expenditures have been more transparent.
8:51:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report CSHJR 33, Version 27-
LS1231\I, Bullard, 2/16/12, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
8:51:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected. He posited that HJR 33 would
affect First Amendment rights and "gets ... onto a slippery
slope that we don't want to be on." He said there are many ways
that people are influenced, including by on line social
networking, and he questioned where the limit on control may end
up. He stated that corporations are made of people, and to
restrict them is to make the statement that "people aren't smart
enough to figure out what's going on."
8:53:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN expressed appreciation for the sponsor's
passion on the issue, even though he said he cannot align
himself with it philosophically.
8:53:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that corporations are economic
creatures of various states, and reiterated that in general,
their sole duty is to make money. Following Citizens United,
the board of directors and the management can use corporate
funds to oppose or support certain candidates to align with
their economic interests, but not at the unanimity of the
shareholders of those corporations. He said he is not opposed
to people forming associations and PACs "for the purpose of
putting their money together to do things"; however, he stated
that he finds it problematic when political choices are made by
management that are not related to the owners of the company and
do not benefit the shareholders' interests. He said he thinks
the only way to get around this is to revisit the restrictions
that have been around for 100 years wherein economic
corporations do not have political free speech in the same way
an individual does. He stated his support for HJR 33.
8:56:03 AM
CHAIR LYNN commented that foreign nationals sometimes serve on
the boards of corporations.
8:56:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN recalled that when the Citizens United
decision was made, the majority of the feedback he received from
his constituents was in opposition to the decision. He said
that when the House State Affairs Standing Committee previously
worked on legislation that required corporations to disclose who
was behind expenditures, he received numerous communications
from constituents congratulating the committee for doing such
good work. He stated his belief that the people who voted for
him would like him to support HJR 33; therefore, he stated his
support of the proposed legislation.
8:57:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN, regarding Representative Seaton's prior
comment, stated that he thinks the interests of corporations and
shareholders are one and the same. Further, he said an
individual has the choice to socially invest in corporations
with similar philosophies.
8:58:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that his motion was not on the
merits of the proposed legislation, but on the right to debate
the bill. He opined that it is ironic and unfortunate that
those supporting the right of corporations to participate in the
political process and exercise the right of free speech would
vote against allowing HJR 33 to move to the full body, so that
the full body can exercise its right to debate the bill. He
said he probably would not feel so vehement if the bill were not
about the right of free speech.
9:00:09 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton, Gruenberg,
Petersen, and Lynn voted in favor of the motion to report CSHJR
33, Version 27-LS1231\I, Bullard, 2/16/12, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
Representatives P. Wilson, Keller, and Johansen voted against
it. Therefore, CSHJR 33(STA) was reported out of the House
State Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.
9:00:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON commented that she is proud of her
staff.
9:01:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, to the previous testifiers,
paraphrased Patrick Henry, by saying, "I may not always agree
with what you say, but I certainly support your right to say
it."