Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
03/01/2022 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
HJR29 | |
SB71 | |
HB234 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
*+ | HJR 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | SB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
+= | HB 234 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 234-POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION LIMITS 4:05:05 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 234, "An Act relating to political contributions; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was Version I, adopted as the working draft on 2/1/22.] 4:06:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN announced that Amendment 1 and Amendment 2 would not be offered. 4:06:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 3, [labeled 32- LS1197\I.9, Bullard, 2/14/22], which read as follows: Page 2, lines 18 - 19: Delete "Beginning in the first quarter of calendar year 2032 and every 10 years thereafter" Insert "In the first quarter of each year" Page 2, line 21: Delete "10-year period " Insert "year" Page 2, line 22, following "increment.": Insert "The adjustment takes effect May 1 of each year." REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion. 4:07:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked: I value the discussion and conversation that we did on a previous bill, which had this same amendment, and I thought the work compromise that we came to together on that was probably more preferable than the language here but as this was offered some time ago, there hasn't been an opportunity to adjust the language there, but certainly wouldn't oppose doing that. 4:07:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE CALVIN SCHRAGE, Alaska State Legislature, opined that adjusting the contribution limits annually could cause additional confusion and artificially inflate the contribution limit. He expressed his opposition to Amendment 3. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN agreed with the bill sponsor. He believed that the public would be better served by adjusting the contribution limits at the same time as redistricting so that changes occurred simultaneously. He stated his opposition to Amendment 3. 4:09:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that without Amendment 3, the bill would effectively lack inflation proofing. He believed that if the 10-year timeframe was maintained, a future legislature would find itself in the same predicament. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his conflicting feelings. He explained that as a "policy vacuum," he preferred annual inflation adjustment; however, from a systems management perspective, he was compelled by the argument that adjusting contribution limits was a large recurring change that should coincide with the redistricting cycle for consistency on a decadal basis. 4:13:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN spoke of natural cycles that occur on a two-year, four-year, and ten-year basis. He suggested selecting a cycle with a shorter cadence than ten years to negate some of the concerns. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE pointed out that if the legislature chose not to limit freedom of speech by means of political contribution, inflation wouldn't be an issue in regard to this matter. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said, "Sounds like that's an endorsement of no contribution limits at all." 4:14:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR reflected on increasing the minimum wage, which included a CPI adjustment. She pointed out that the high inflation at present was an unusual circumstance related to the pandemic and the supply chain disruption, which was causing the high demand. REPRESENTATIVE STORY pointed out that some people felt their speech was limited by their income, as they could not donate as much as a wealthy person. 4:16:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that the days of low inflation were done unless the U.S. decided to overhaul its entire financial system. He stated that without inflation adjustments, the contribution limits would decrease over time, which would eventually lead to intervention by the courts. 4:17:48 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and Eastman voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 3. Representatives Tarr, Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 3-4. 4:18:21 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 4, [labeled 32- LS1197\I.10, Bullard, 2/21/22], which read: Page 1, line 6: Delete "$1,000 [$500] per year" Insert "$2,000 each campaign period [$500 PER YEAR]" Page 1, line 7, following the second occurrence of "candidate,": Insert "or" Page 1, lines 8 - 9: Delete ", or to a group that is not a political party" Insert "[, OR TO A GROUP THAT IS NOT A POLITICAL PARTY]" Page 1, line 10, following "party": Insert "or other group" Page 1, lines 13 - 14: Delete "$2,000 [$1,000] per year (1)" Insert "(1) $4,000 each campaign period [$1,000 PER YEAR (1)]" Page 2, line 1, following "(2)": Insert "$5,000 each year" Page 2, line 4: Delete "$2,000 [$1,000] a year" Insert "(1) $4,000 each campaign period [$1,000 A YEAR]" Page 2, line 5, following the second occurrence of "candidate,": Insert "or" Page 2, line 6, following "candidate": Delete ", to a group," Insert "; (2) $5,000 each year [,] to a group [,]" Page 2, lines 11 - 12: Delete "$2,000 [$1,000] per year" Insert "$4,000 each campaign period [$1,000 PER YEAR]" Page 2, line 13: Delete "$4,000 [$2,000] per year" Insert "$8,000 each campaign period [$2,000 PER YEAR]" Page 2, line 18: Delete "2032" Insert "2031" Page 2, following line 22: Insert new bill sections to read: "* Sec. 6. AS 15.13.110(i) is amended to read: (i) During a campaign period, the commission may not change the manner or format in which reports required of a candidate under this chapter must be filed. [IN THIS SUBSECTION, "CAMPAIGN PERIOD" MEANS THE PERIOD BEGINNING ON THE DATE THAT A CANDIDATE BECOMES ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER THIS CHAPTER AND ENDING ON THE DATE THAT A FINAL REPORT FOR THAT SAME CAMPAIGN MUST BE FILED.] * Sec. 7. AS 15.13.400 is amended by adding a new paragraph to read: (20) "campaign period" means the period beginning on the date that a candidate becomes eligible to receive campaign contributions under this chapter and ending on the date that a final report for that same campaign must be filed." Renumber the following bill section accordingly. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected for the purpose of discussion. 4:18:52 PM ERIK GUNDERSON, Staff, Representative Calvin Schrage, Alaska State Legislature, explained that Amendment 4 would increase the contribution limit and implement per-campaign period limits, as opposed to annual limits. The amendment would also change the inflation adjustment date to begin 2031 and every 10 years thereafter. Additionally, Amendment 4 defined "campaign period" and noted that the Alaska Political Offices Commission (APOC) may not change the manner or format in which reports were required of candidates during the campaign cycle. 4:21:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the impact on future campaign account provisions. MR. GUNDERSON said the changes in Amendment 4 would not impact the current status of future campaign accounts. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the benefits of redefining a "campaign period." MR. GUNDERSON recalled the courts highlighting a barrier to entry for challengers that run for office, as most challengers file during an election year whereas incumbents typically fundraise year-round. He believed that a per-campaign cycle would place challengers and incumbents on the same playing field with the same limits regardless of when they enter the race. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how APOC would interpret the proposed language on Page 3, lines 5-7, of Amendment 4. 4:23:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE deferred to APOC. 4:25:05 PM TOM LUCAS, Alaska Public Offices Commission, asked Representative Eastman to restate the question. 4:25:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN restated the question, asking whether the language on page 3, lines 5-7, of Amendment 3 would interfere with the uniformity of campaign periods. MR. LUCAS understood that the campaign period could be different for each candidate, as the campaign period would begin on the date a letter of intent was filed. Regardless of the number of days in each individual candidate's campaign period, the contribution limit would be the same. 4:27:34 PM The committee took a brief at-ease. 4:28:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that under current statute, there was a limited period of time within which the candidate was allowed to collect contributions. MR. LUCAS confirmed. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked what that period of time was. MR. LUCAS answered 18 months prior to the election. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN remarked: It doesn't increase the amount of contributions available it just gets to the period of time within which I can accept contributions and that actually isn't just driven by when I file my letter of intent, it's also by the statute that limits the period within which I can collect contributions. MR. LUCAS confirmed. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that the window for collecting contributions was 18 months before the election, which was somewhat further limited by when the candidate filed a letter of intent. He reiterated that in no event could that period be longer than 18 months. He asked if that was correct. MR. LUCAS confirmed. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said it didn't get much clearer: the campaign period was the 18-month period limited by the filing date. He believed that the purpose of defining "campaign period" was to provide that clarity. 4:30:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested changing the language on page 3, line 6, of Amendment 4 from "a candidate becomes eligible to receive campaign contributions" to "a candidate becomes eligible to file for office" to clarify the intent. REPRESENTATIVE TARR believed that the suggested language would be problematic because fundraising was allowed prior to filing. She opined that the existing language in Amendment 4 was clear and should not be confused by trying to incorporate a reference to filing for office with the Division of Elections (DOE). 4:32:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN believed that the statement made by Representative Tarr further proved his point. He shared his understanding that candidates could fundraise before filing for office but not before they were eligible to file, which initiated the 18-month window. He opined that if the campaign period, by definition, were to begin when a candidate filed for office, it would be uniform for all candidates in the election cycle. 4:33:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN read a lengthy statement regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, as well as McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission in 2014. He concluded that the alignment between the average dividend amount for a two-year period and the proposed $2,000 campaign period limit on an individual contribution was a significant factor that should be considered in looking at the proposed amendment. For that reason, he said he was in support of Amendment 4 and instituting a $2,000 individual limit. 4:39:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN acknowledged that changing the campaign period would provide clarity for the public's understanding; however, he believed it didn't relate to future campaign account provisions. He pointed out that if a candidate wanted to take money from a future campaign account, the $4,000 limit wouldn't apply. 4:41:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN withdrew his objection. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 4 was adopted. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited comments on the bill, as amended. 4:41:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether a different effective date should be considered. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE deferred to Mr. Gunderson. 4:43:10 PM MR. GUNDERSON conveyed that with the effective date occurring after APOC's advisory opinion was implemented, candidates would not be statutorily required to repay any money they had raised; however, they couldn't raise any additional funds. He provided an example in which a candidate raised an aggregate of $2,501 over the past two years, noting that the candidate could not raise beyond the $2,000 limit, per CSHB 234, Version I, as amended. 4:43:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether the $501 would need to be reported and returned. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE shared his understanding that as long as contributions received to date were in line with APOC's advisory decision, no donations would need to be returned to donors. He reiterated that a candidate who received more than $2,000 could retain those donations, as they were presumably gathered before the proposed legislation went into effect. He noted that the candidate in question would not be allowed to receive any additional funds from those donors. 4:45:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN believed that the explanation provided by the bill sponsor put a different view on the underlying legislation, opining that it would effectively benefit incumbent candidates. He recommended solving the disparity by making the bill go into effect at the end of the current campaign period. 4:46:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE conceded that the bill would retain a temporary advantage for incumbents. However, he noted that the incumbent advantage already existed to a greater degree under the current system. He pointed out that if the effective date were to begin at the next campaign period, all candidates would be subject to APOC's advisory opinion until that time, which was perceived to lack any true authority by some. 4:48:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN shared his understanding that the majority of the public supported campaign contribution limits and did not pay attention to the incremental progress on those issues. He opined that reinstituting reasonable limits would show the public that the legislature was responding to their concerns. 4:49:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report CSHB 234, Version 32- LS1197\I, Bullard, 1/22/22, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 234(STA) was moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
SB071_ArtsCouncil_SamplePlates_PlateDemand_07Feb2022.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2022 3:00:00 PM |
SB 71 |
HJR 29 Hearing Request memo.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 29 |
HJR 29 Version A.PDF |
HSTA 3/1/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 29 |
SB 71 Fiscal Note EED-ASCA-1-11-2022.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2022 3:00:00 PM |
SB 71 |
SB 71 Fiscal Note DOA-DMV-1-24-2022.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2022 3:00:00 PM |
SB 71 |
HJR 29 Sponsor Statement 03.01.2022.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 29 |
HB 234 Amendment I.10 by Kreiss-Tomkins.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 234 |
HB 234 Amendment packet with votes - H STA 03.01.22.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 234 |