Legislature(2009 - 2010)BUTROVICH 205
04/13/2010 09:15 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB36 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 36-INITIATIVES: CONTRIBUTIONS/ PROCEDURES
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of HB 36. [CSSSHB
36(FIN) AM was before the committee.]
9:56:52 AM
KYLE JOHANSEN, a prime sponsor of HB 36, explained that this
legislation addresses disclosure and information in the
initiative process. It would require disclosure once more than
$500 is spend on an initiative proposal, and it would require
that at least two public hearings per judicial district be held
on a proposed ballot initiative. These public hearings would
provide a formal process by which voters could learn about the
impacts of the proposed ballot initiatives.
CHAIR FRENCH asked for an explanation of the pre-certification
phase of the initiative process.
SONIA CHRISTENSEN, Staff to Representative Kyle Johansen,
explained that initiative proposals require three prime
sponsors, signatures from 100 registered Alaskan voters, and the
initiative language, all of which is submitted to the lieutenant
governor. If the topic and language pass constitutional muster
and once the initial signatures are verified, the sponsors are
approved to collect signatures statewide.
10:02:34 AM
SENATOR COGHILL joined the committee.
CHAIR FRENCH observed that once the signatures have been
gathered one or more parties push the measure during the
election phase.
MS. CHRISTENSEN agreed and added that that's the phase when the
initiative is approved for the ballot. This includes verifying
the signatures that are sorted by House district.
CHAIR FRENCH suggested that for the purpose of discussing the
bill that they refer to the pre-certification phase, the
signature phase, and the election phase. He then asked Ms.
Christensen to briefly review the 16 sections of the bill.
MS. CHRISTENSEN provided the following sectional analysis:
· Section 1 changes the reporting requirement for initiatives
to capture the timeframe from the first application with
the Division of Elections up until the lieutenant governor
certifies the bill It states that every individual, person,
nongroup entity, or group that has contributed $500 or more
to a group organized for the purpose of filing an
initiative proposal application or that has filed an
initiative proposal application would be required to report
their contributions.
10:05:18 AM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if it would be a reportable expenditure if he
hired a lawyer to help draft language for a ballot initiative.
MS. CHRISTENSEN replied it's a non-reportable expenditure. She
continued the sectional analysis.
· Section 2 adds language [to AS 15.13.050(a)] and requires
groups to register [with APOC before making expenditures
supporting or opposing an initiative proposal that was
filed with the lieutenant governor.] This covers the
signature-gathering phase.
· Section 3 requires a group that intends to spend more than
50 percent of their funds to support or oppose a ballot
initiative to include the title of the initiative in the
name of the group.
CHAIR FRENCH said he'll ask APOC about using the word "intends"
as it applies to a group and if it might not be preferable to
impose the requirement once the group does spend a majority of
its funds.
MS. CHRISTENSEN continued the sectional analysis.
· Section 4 [expands the meaning of "proposition" under AS
15.13.065(c) to include an initiative proposal application
filed with the lieutenant governor.] This is to include the
signature-gathering phase.
· Section 5 removes the reference to "an initiative" from AS
15.13.110(e) so that the special disclosures can be applied
to initiatives in the early phases of the process. The
notion is that referendums and recalls aren't as great an
issue as statewide ballot measures.
· Section 6 [adds a new subsection AS 15.13.110(g)]
addressing disclosures for initiatives. Disclosure is
required once the $500 threshold is met and then the
reports must be submitted quarterly.
10:08:57 AM
CHAIR FRENCH asked her interpretation of the last sentence in
Section 6.
MS. CHRISTENSEN offered her understanding that the language
mirrors what is already in statute and deferred to APOC for any
further explanation.
· Section 7 expands the definition of "contribution" to
include payments rendered during the signature-gathering
phase.
· Section 8 expands the definition of "expenditures" to
include those made during the signature-gathering phase.
· Section 9 changes the definition of a group to include
those organized to file an initiative proposal application.
This was suggested by APOC.
· Section 10 echoes the existing [AS 15.45.040] and confines
an initiative to a single subject.
· Section 11 requires signature gatherers to carry a full
copy of the initiative, not just a summary.
10:11:15 AM
· Section 12 requires the lieutenant governor to hold two
reasonably noticed public hearings in each judicial
district. A schedule is provided, testimony may be oral or
written, and participants do not need to be physically
present.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that Alpheus Bullard, who is with Legislative
Legal, wrote a memo specifically pointing out that this language
presents no First Amendment infringement whatsoever.
MS. CHRISTENSEN added that the House Judiciary Committee worked
hard on the language.
CHAIR FRENCH asked about the possibility of transmitting these
hearings by webcam to the Internet.
10:14:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN noted that the energy committee meeting
that was held in Bethel was live streamed to over 30 villages.
MS. CHRISTENSEN continued the sectional analysis.
· Section 13 adds "special election" to AS 15.58.010, which
requires an election pamphlet to be sent to each household
prior to each state general and state primary election.
· Section 14 adds "special election" to AS 15.58.020(b),
which relates to information in primary election pamphlets.
CHAIR FRENCH mused about constitutional changes and who really
is best served by initiatives being on the primary ballot when
in fact few voters go to the polls for primary elections.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN agreed that it's an interesting issue
and commented that he'd be happy to co-sponsor the
constitutional amendment if Senator French would do the heavy
lifting.
MS. CHRISTENSEN continued the sectional analysis.
· Section 15 requires a legislative standing committee to
review initiatives that the lieutenant governor certifies
for placement on the ballot. This is another opportunity
for a public hearing.
· Section 16 is the effective date clause.
10:17:04 AM
SENATOR COGHILL suggested using the word "hearing" rather than
"review" because it's not clear what "review" means for a
committee.
CHAIR FRENCH said he'd also like to know who would decide which
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said his vision was to use the
jurisdiction of the Uniform Rules to determine the particular
committee. With respect to the terminology, he said he's open to
suggestions to make it more specific. He clarified that the
intent is that the Legislature would in no way be able to tinker
with a citizen initiative, but that it could hear from the
affected department about the potential impact.
10:19:37 AM
CHAIR FRENCH asked who would make the assignment to ensure that
this takes place.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN replied he didn't have a solution.
CHAIR FRENCH said, "We'll think of something."
LORNA SHAW, Executive Director, Council of Alaska Producers
(CAP), said she is testifying in support of HB 36. CAP is a
mining trade association whose 13 members were the target of the
2008 ballot initiative that was officially titled the "Clean
Water Initiative." CAP preferred to term it the "Anti-Mining
Initiative.
She highlighted that three different versions of the initiative
were submitted to the lieutenant governor for approval and two
were approved for signature gathering. CAP wasn't sure which
version would be on the ballot until six weeks prior to the
election. People were approached by signature gatherers
statewide and asked to "sign here to stop Pebble" even though
the word "Pebble" didn't appear in either version. Furthermore,
signature gatherers appeared to be unable and unwilling to
engage in discussion about details and rarely if ever did they
have a copy of the initiative itself.
10:22:32 AM
MS. SHAW said a major flaw in the initiative process is the lack
of vetting, and opined that it's critical that voters are given
the information to understand what the initiative does and does
not do and not what the backers intended for it to do. Noting
that APOC essentially gagged DNR on ballot measure 4, she said
the legislative hearings and state agency input required in HB
36 can only help voters. These public hearings will be far more
helpful than forums hosted by groups with an agenda relative to
the initiative. HB 36 also provides for more and better
financial disclosure, she said. With ballot measure 4 it was
expected and clearly reported that the mining companies were
defending themselves, but it was unclear who was paying for
other side. HB 36 will provide earlier answers.
MS. SHAW said the initiative process in Alaska is important, but
it's also important to ensure that voters have information about
who is behind an initiative, who is paying for it, the effects
and meaning, and the unintended consequences. HB 36 will improve
the initiative process, she concluded.
10:24:48 AM
CHIP THOMA, Responsible Cruising in Alaska, said this
organization brought the successful statewide head tax
initiative in 2006. He reported the following statistics:
· 73 percent of all initiatives filed with the lieutenant
governor never appear on a ballot.
· Of the remaining 27 percent, 15 percent fail at the ballot
and 12 percent pass.
· In the last 15 years just 8 of the approximately 75
initiatives have passed the ballot.
· Two related to term limits.
· Two related to campaign disclosure reform.
· Two related to game management.
· One related to medical marijuana.
· One related to the head tax.
MR. THOMA opined that HB 36 is dramatically better legislation
thanks to Senator Coghill's efforts when he sat on the House
Judiciary Committee, and suggested that a further improvement
would be to include the phrase "or opposing" throughout the
legislation. This will level the playing field because in the
initiative process the opposition outspends the proponents by a
five to one margin. For example, the organizations that opposed
the "Pebble Initiative" spent more than $9 million. He further
suggested that the committee specify the penalties for a
violation of the public hearings section on page 7 and expressed
agreement with Senator Coghill that the standing committee
should conduct hearings rather than reviews.
10:29:42 AM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that Section 1 talks about groups
that are formed for the purpose of influencing the outcome of a
proposition, which would apply to both pro and con.
MR. THOMA suggested it would be clearer to insert "or opposing"
after "filing" on page 1, line 10.
CHAIR FRENCH noted parenthetically that the Citizens United
decision changed the landscape in terms of who will play in
these matters and that a separate piece of legislation was
introduced that uses the group term "person" in an effort to be
more inclusive.
JASON BRUNE, Executive Director, Resource Development Council
(RDC), stated that HB 36 is one of RDC's top priorities. He said
that although the RDC may question the appropriateness and the
role of the initiative process as a means of governing, the RDC
appreciates the democratic rights of Alaskans to change state
law through the initiative process. Over the last few years,
however, a number of proposed initiatives have been brought
forward that have not had the best interests of the state or its
citizens in mind. Furthermore, the sponsors have used tactics
during the signature-gathering phase to mislead the public and
misconstrue the issues.
MR. BRUNE said the RDC believes that openness and transparency
must be at the forefront of good government and that the framers
of the state constitution were wise to include the initiative
process. It's interesting, however, that constitutional delegate
Vic Fischer voted against the article on the initiative, arguing
that it is a device that lends itself most to special interest
groups. He opined that Mr. Fisher was prophetic because citizens
have witnessed these special interests embracing the initiative
process over the last decade. In fact, in the last five years
the Alaska business community has been the target of numerous
punitive ballot initiatives pushed by anti-business and
environmental interest groups unable to accomplish their goals
through the legislative process.
10:33:29 AM
MR. BRUNE pointed out that legislators are required to disclose
how they raise and spend money and questioned why those who are
attempting to change state law through the initiative process
shouldn't be subject to that same standard. He further
questioned why they shouldn't also be required to disclose the
source of their funding during the signature-gathering phase of
the initiative process. Such openness and transparency will
bring to light the agendas of initiative sponsors, he stated.
HB 36 will require public and legislative hearings for
initiatives and that's a good idea. The process that legislators
go through to pass laws is very thorough. Unintended
consequences of a piece of legislation are usually vetted
through committee hearings, public testimony, and floor debates
that a bill requires.
MR. BRUNE stated agreement with Senator French with respect to
the use of "intends" as it applies to a group in Section 3 and
the use of webcams during the public hearing process. He said
Senator Coghill made a good point about holding hearings as
opposed to reviews and that the bill should clarify who assigns
the hearings. Finally, he said he doesn't object to Mr. Thoma's
suggestion that those who oppose an initiative should also be
required to disclose. More disclosure is better for Alaska and
results in a more candid process, he concluded.
10:35:13 AM
HOLLY HILL, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission
(APOC), stated that APOC has taken no position on HB 36.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what HB 36 adds that will ensure that Alaskan
voters will know who is spending money to advance or oppose
ballot initiatives.
MS. HILL answered with an example. Under current law, if a bunch
of people get together purely for the purpose of raising
signatures and then cease to exist at the time that the ballot
is certified, they aren't a group under the law so APOC has
nothing to do with them. "The definition of a group is two or
more people formed for the purpose of influencing a ballot
proposition," she said.
CHAIR FRENCH observed that current law pertains only to the
election phase and not the signature-gathering phase.
MS. HILL said that's correct except that if expenditures are
made by a group that is formed for the purpose of influencing an
election, those expenditures are reported after the
certification. She understands that HB 36 captures the timeframe
from the first application with the Division of Elections up
until the lieutenant governor certifies the bill.
10:38:01 AM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if during that signature-gathering phase you
could have TV ads running that advocate for or against the
underlying initiative in the guise of trying to gather
signatures or not to sign the initiative petition.
MS. HILL said yes; money that's spent encouraging citizens to
sign a ballot initiative petition isn't an issue for APOC.
CHAIR FRENCH expressed surprise that it's not a reportable
expense.
MS. HILL added that money spent to influence the election is
reportable.
CHAIR FRENCH clarified that money spent during the election
phase is reportable.
MS. HILL agreed. She added that HB 36 amends the meaning of
"ballot proposition" to include an initiative proposal
application. She noted that Mr. Thoma said that AS 15.13.050
says you must register before expending money to influence a
ballot proposition. Under this legislation, the term "ballot
proposition" now includes the application.
10:40:10 AM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if someone who wants to spend money
on a TV campaign to influence a piece of legislation before the
Legislature would have to file with APOC.
MS. HILL clarified that that is part of the legislative process;
it isn't an election. She explained that if three individuals
filed with the Division of Elections to sponsor an initiative
and then disappeared and if a separate bunch of people got
together purely to gather signatures with the intent to
disappear the moment it was certified, APOC would have
absolutely nothing to do with that under current law. HB 36
would change that.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI commented that this seems to create two
separate classes. It puts requirements on people who file an
initiative or referendum whereas people who want to influence
the Legislature don't have to report.
10:42:44 AM
MS. HILL reiterated that under the current campaign disclosure
rules, expenditures are not reportable until the election phase
of the initiative process.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI offered the view that money spent to
influence legislation should be treated the same way as money
spent to influence an election.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Dosik if he would like to add to Ms.
Hill's testimony.
THOMAS DOSIK, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Labor
and State Affairs Section, Department of Law (DOL), related that
APOC exists to enforce laws on campaign finance and lobbying. If
there isn't an active campaign or if the activity doesn't
qualify as lobbying, then APOC doesn't regulate the activity.
If, for example, somebody wanted to buy TV ads to influence HB
36, APOC wouldn't have jurisdiction or concern about that. The
caveat is that existing groups such as political parties or
other groups that maintain a long-term existence do have to
regularly report all their contributions and expenditures.
10:45:30 AM
CHAIR FRENCH cited the subsistence wars and recalled full-page
ads singling out individual legislators and encouraging voters
to tell their legislator to let the subsistence measure go
forward. He observed that Senator Wielechowski makes an
interesting point because that activity is separate and not part
of any reporting scheme.
MR. DOSIK confirmed that that's correct.
SENATOR COGHILL questioned whether the "intends to make"
language in Section 3 should be replaced with the phrase
"intends to support."
CHAIR FRENCH acknowledged the suggestion and held HB 36 in
committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|