Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/01/1996 11:13 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 191
An Act relating to election campaigns, election
campaign financing, the oversight and regulation of
election campaigns by the Alaska Public Offices
Commission, the activities of lobbyists that relate to
election campaigns, and the definitions of offenses of
campaign misconduct; and providing for an effective
date.
Co-chairman Halford directed that SB 191 be brought on for
discussion. SENATOR TIM KELLY came before committee in
support of the bill. He explained that utilizing CSSB 191
(Jud) as the base, work draft CSSB 191 (9-LS1260\H,
Chenoweth, 4/30/96) attempts to strike an agreement on key
provisions and clean up and conform initiative provisions to
statutory language.
Senator Kelly directed attention to correspondence from the
chairman of Campaign Finance Reform--Now! The group
collected over 33,000 signatures for placement of a campaign
finance reform initiative on the November ballot. The
correspondence indicates that version "H" is an acceptable
approach which addresses the goals of the initiative.
Senator Kelly highlighted the following areas:
1. Initiative provisions prohibit non-resident campaign
contributions. The work draft CSSB 191 allows limited
non-resident campaign contributions.
2. The initiative prohibits personal use, office use, and
most other uses of campaign funds. The draft permits
some transfer of campaign funds to office use.
3. The initiative prohibits all carryforwards of campaign
funds. The draft allows some carryforward.
The Senator referenced need for the legislation to meet a
standard deeming it "substantially the same" as the
initiative and noted strict adherence to the following
important provisions that represent the spirit of the
initiative:
1. Lobbyists are prohibited from making campaign
contributions outside their districts. (Senator Kelly
acknowledged that this issue is likely to end
up in court.)
2. Candidate-groups-to-candidate-groups transfer of
campaign funds are prohibited.
3. Corporations, companies, partnerships, unions and the
like are prohibited from making contributions.
The proposed draft is an attempt to maintain the essence of
campaign finance reform and is substantially similar to the
initiative. Senator Kelly acknowledged that it does not
resolve all the constitutional questions that have been
raised. Provisions of either the initiative or the proposed
bill are likely to be taken to court, regardless of which
passes. It will take several years for campaign reform to
settle out in the court system.
Co-chairman Halford asked if the chairman of Campaign
Finance Reform--Now! would encourage the governor to sign
the proposed draft should it pass the legislature. MIKE
FRANK, Chairman, Campaign Reform--Now!, responded
affirmatively via teleconference from Anchorage. The Co-
chairman then asked if the proposed bill is substantially
similar to the goals of the initiative. He further asked if
belief that it is would be communicated to the Lt. Governor.
Mr. Frank said he could not speak for all petitioners. He
voiced his belief that lawyers could make reasonable
arguments on "both sides of the bill" because the state of
the law is undeveloped. The few pertinent court decisions
are 20 years old, and the main decision was 3 to 2. Of
greater importance is the time and effort that has gone into
the draft. That has significant advantages. Mr. Frank said
he was "very supportive" of version "H" and advised that if
it is signed into law, he would not become involved in "any
revolution to keep the initiative on the ballot." He
acknowledged that he could not guarantee there would not be
objections. Mr. Frank remarked that while certain
provisions of the bill diminish those in the initiative, he
understands why the changes were made and that they were
made in good faith. They do not do such violence to the
initiative that it would serve the long-term interest of the
campaign reform group to raise a challenge, if passed.
In response to a further question from Co-chairman Halford,
Mr. Frank advised that reasonable arguments could be made
that it is substantially similar. The political advantages
of passage of law are important to a long-term solution
accepted by the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN next came before committee. Co-
chairman Halford asked if the Representative would encourage
both the Governor and Lt. Governor to act on the bill if it
was passed. Representative Finkelstein said he would vote
for the bill and encourage signature by the Governor. He
said he could not determine whether the bill would meet the
legal requirement of being "substantially the same" as
initiative provisions. Representative Finkelstein voiced
his belief that the bill would be good for the state, good
public policy, and that it reflects the general goals of the
initiative.
Co-chairman Halford expressed unwillingness to replace the
initiative with the proposed legislation unless the
leadership of the 30,000 petitioners is in accord with
legislative action. Representative Finkelstein reiterated
support for the current draft.
Senator Rieger referenced language at Page 20, line 8, and
inquired concerning the effect of use of "shall" rather than
"may" in discretion relating to penalties associated with a
complaint. JACK CHENOWETH, Legislative Counsel, Legal
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, noted the requirement
that the commission "shall" assess civil penalties. In
subsection (e), commencing at line 17, the commission is
given the opportunity to suspend or set aside penalties if
it finds the violation was inadvertent, quickly corrected,
had no adverse impact, and was not repeated or part of a
series or pattern of violations. There is thus a
presumption the penalty will be levied, with the exception
of conditions cited in subsection (e).
Further discussion followed concerning the consequences of
changing "shall" to "may." Mr. Chenoweth explained that
subsection (b) would become discretionary, and there would
be no need for subsection (e). He noted that, as presently
drafted, provisions are consistent with the initiative and a
bit more structured in directions to the commission
regarding how matters will be handled. Representative
Finkelstein noted a different standard in the initiative.
It contains both a minimum and a maximum. Use of "shall"
makes a difference in the initiative. In the bill it makes
no difference because all penalties are maximums. There are
no minimums. Removal of minimums gives the commission and
the court discretion to "go to zero" even when the
conditions of (e) are not met.
Senator Rieger next questioned language at Page 9, line 24.
Representative Finkelstein noted that the initiative
contains a $25 cap for cash donations. Senate State Affairs
Committee returned the total to existing law ($100) with the
concurrence of the sponsors. Senator Randy Phillips
inquired concerning the rationale behind the $25 cap.
Representative Finkelstein said that testimony from the
commission and members of the legislature indicated that
current law does not pose a significant problem. Campaigns
in rural areas would be negatively impacted by the $25
maximum. The initiative committee concurred in the return
to $100 as the maximum. The original intent was to avoid
contributions that cannot be tracked.
Senator Rieger questioned language within Section 14, Pages
13 and 14. Representative Finkelstein explained that it
stems from a request from the Alaska Public Offices
Commission. It recognizes a court decision that allows
individuals to "do essentially anonymous, no disclaimer,
kinds of things for relatively small expenditures in
expressing their view through signs and handouts." Without
the language, existing "paid for by" standards in Alaska
could be challenged and struck down. Senator Rieger voiced
his understanding that provisions relate more to the
disclaimer than the amount of money spent. Representative
Finkelstein concurred.
Senator Kelly advised that in developing the bill, several
APOC recommendations were adopted.
BROOKE MILES, Juneau Branch Administrator, Alaska Public
Offices Commission, came before committee and voiced support
for version "H." She then explained that the $98.7 fiscal
note provides for "some additional provisions." The new
investigator would handle complex civil penalties, inquiries
from the public, and the complaint caseload. The position
would also produce a training program concerning new rules.
The administrative clerk would assist in paper processing
and provide support functions for the investigator. A
regulation specialist would work for two years, only, to
write regulations to implement the new rules. In additional
to the positions, the fiscal note contains funding for
travel for training so that new and incumbent candidates are
knowledgeable of rule changes.
Co-chairman Halford referenced a proposed amendment. Mr.
Chenoweth explained that it would fit within Section 2
language which amends existing law prohibiting use of
charitable gaming proceeds to support candidates for public
office, a political party, or an organization affiliated
with a political party. In drafting the present version,
Mr. Chenoweth said he neglected to make reference to AS
15.60 which defines "political group." The amendment
extends the definition to bar campaign contributions to
"political groups" as defined in the election code. These
are small associations and entities that did not qualify at
the 3 percent threshold level in the last gubernatorial
election. Senator Kelly said the language was brought to
light by Senate President Pearce.
Mr. Frank advised, via teleconference, that the initiative
did not contain provisions relating to the use of charitable
gaming proceeds. He voiced his belief that those supporting
the initiative would have no problems with the more
restrictive language in the proposed amendment. It does not
appear to impact initiative provisions relating to group
contributions. Representative Finkelstein voiced support
for the technical amendment.
Senator Randy Phillips MOVED for adoption of CSSB 191 (Fin)
(version "H") as the mark-up document. No objection having
been raised, CSSB 191 (Fin) was ADOPTED. Senator Phillips
then MOVED for adoption of Amendment No. 1. No objection
having been raised, Amendment No. 1 was ADOPTED. Senator
Phillips next MOVED for passage of CSSB 191 (Fin) with
individual recommendations. No objection having been
raised, CSSB 191 (Fin) was REPORTED OUT of committee with a
$98.7 fiscal note from the Dept. of Administration (APOC), a
$47.5 note from the Dept. of Law, and zero notes from the
Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs, Governor's Office
(Elections), and Legislative Affairs Agency. Co-chairman
Frank and Senators Donley, Phillips, Rieger, and Sharp
signed the committee report with a "do pass" recommendation.
Co-chairman Halford signed "do pass unless amended."
Senator Zharoff signed "no recommendation."
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|