Legislature(1999 - 2000)

04/14/2000 04:58 PM 225

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
                 CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON HB 225                                                                                 
                         April 14, 2000                                                                                         
                            4:58 p.m.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chair                                                                                              
Representative John Harris                                                                                                      
Representative Eric Croft                                                                                                       
Senator Dave Donley, Co-Chair                                                                                                   
Senator Mike Miller                                                                                                             
Senator Lyman Hoffman                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
All members present                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 225                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to election campaigns and legislative ethics;                                                                  
and providing for an effective date."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 225                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND LEGISLATIVE ETHICS                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 5/05/99      1180     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 5/05/99      1180     (H)  JUD                                                                                                 
 5/06/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 5/06/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 5/06/99               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 5/06/99               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 5/07/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 5/07/99               (H)  CSHB 225(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                      
 5/07/99               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 5/07/99      1247     (H)  COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING                                                                               
 5/08/99      1259     (H)  JUD RPT  CS(JUD) 2DP 4NR                                                                            
 5/08/99      1260     (H)  DP: JAMES, ROKEBERG; NR: CROFT,                                                                     
 5/08/99      1260     (H)  MURKOWSKI, GREEN, KERTTULA                                                                          
 5/08/99      1260     (H)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE (H.JUD)                                                                            
 5/08/99      1271     (H)  RULES TO CALENDAR  5/8/99                                                                           
 5/08/99      1271     (H)  HELD TO 5/10 CALENDAR                                                                               
 5/10/99      1289     (H)  READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                                
 5/10/99      1290     (H)  JUD  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                                                                        
 5/10/99      1290     (H)  AM NO   1     FAILED  Y16 N23 A1                                                                    
 5/10/99      1291     (H)  AM NO   2     FAILED  Y16 N19 A5                                                                    
 5/10/99      1291     (H)  AM NO   3     FAILED  Y16 N20 A4                                                                    
 5/10/99      1292     (H)  AM NO  4     FAILED  Y18 N22                                                                        
 5/10/99      1293     (H)  AM NO   5     FAILED  Y17 N21 A2                                                                    
 5/10/99      1294     (H)  ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                                                                      
                            CONSENT                                                                                             
 5/10/99      1294     (H)  READ THE THIRD TIME  CSHB 225(JUD)                                                                  
 5/10/99      1294     (H)  PASSED Y27 N12 A1                                                                                   
 5/10/99      1294     (H)  EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                                                                   
 5/10/99      1295     (H)  KERTTULA  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                                                                 
 5/11/99      1329     (H)  RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP                                                                        
 5/11/99      1329     (H)  TRANSMITTED TO (S)                                                                                  
 5/12/99      1385     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 5/12/99      1385     (S)  JUD                                                                                                 
 5/14/99               (S)  JUD AT  2:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                           
 5/14/99               (S)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 5/14/99               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 5/15/99               (S)  JUD AT 12:00 PM BELTZ 211                                                                           
 5/15/99               (S)  MOVED  CS (JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                    
 5/15/99               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 5/16/99      1514     (S)  JUD RPT SCS  1DP 2NR      SAME TITLE                                                                
 5/16/99      1514     (S)  NR: TAYLOR,  HALFORD; DP: DONLEY                                                                    
 5/16/99      1514     (S)  (H) ZERO FN (H.JUD)                                                                                 
 5/17/99               (S)  RLS AT 10:30 AM FAHRENKAMP 203                                                                      
 5/17/99               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                         
 5/17/99      1565     (S)  RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1DNP  5/17/99                                                                 
 5/17/99      1580     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                                
 5/17/99      1580     (S)  JUD SCS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                                                                        
 5/17/99      1580     (S)  AM NO  1     ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                                                                   
 5/17/99      1580     (S)  AM NO  2     FAILED Y6 N14                                                                          
 5/17/99      1581     (S)  AM NO  3     NOT OFFERED                                                                            
 5/17/99      1581     (S)  AM NO  4     FAILED  Y5 N15                                                                         
 5/17/99      1582     (S)  AM NO  5     ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                                                                   
 5/17/99      1582     (S)  AM NO  6     FAILED  Y5 N15                                                                         
 5/17/99      1583     (S)  AM NO  7     ADOPTED Y12 N8                                                                         
 5/17/99      1584     (S)  ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                                                                      
                            CONSENT                                                                                             
 5/17/99      1584     (S)  READ THE 3RD TIME SCS CSHB 225(JUD)                                                                 
                            AM S                                                                                                
 5/17/99      1584     (S)  PASSED Y14 N6                                                                                       
 5/17/99      1585     (S)  EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                                                                   
 5/17/99      1585     (S)  ELLIS  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                                                                    
 5/18/99      1610     (S)  RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING                                                                   
 5/18/99      1610     (S)  RETURN  TO SECOND FOR AM 9  UNAN                                                                    
                            CONSENT                                                                                             
 5/18/99      1610     (S)  AM NO  9     ADOPTED Y14 N4 A2                                                                      
 5/18/99      1614     (S)  AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                                                                      
 5/18/99      1615     (S)  RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 10 UNAN                                                                     
                            CONSENT                                                                                             
 5/18/99      1615     (S)  AM NO 10     FAILED  Y7 N13                                                                         
 5/18/99      1617     (S)  AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                                                                      
 5/18/99      1617     (S)  PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y14 N6                                                                    
 5/18/99      1618     (S)  EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                                                                   
 5/18/99      1658     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H) AS AMENDED                                                                       
 5/18/99      1590     (H)  HELD UNDER UNFINISHED BUSINESS                                                                      
 5/18/99      1635     (H)  RETAINED IN UNFINISHED BUSINESS                                                                     
 5/19/99      1672     (H)  RETURN TO RULES COMMITTEE                                                                           
 4/10/00               (H)  RLS AT  4:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 4/10/00               (H)  Rls Cmte did not concur w/Sen                                                                       
                            amendmts                                                                                            
 4/10/00               (H)  MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                         
 4/10/00      2979     (H)  RLS RPT 5 DO NOT CONCUR                                                                             
 4/10/00      2979     (H)  DO NOT CONCUR: COWDERY, PHILLIPS,                                                                   
 4/10/00      2979     (H)  GREEN, PORTER, BERKOWITZ                                                                            
 4/10/00      2979     (H)  HELD UNDER UNFINISHED BUSINESS                                                                      
 4/10/00      2990     (H)  FAILED CONCUR (S) AM  N35 E3 A2                                                                     
 4/10/00      2991     (H)  CONFERENCE COMMITTEE APPOINTED                                                                      
 4/10/00      2991     (H)  *GREEN, HARRIS, CROFT                                                                               
 4/11/00      2973     (S)  FAILED RECEDE (S) AM  Y- N18 A2                                                                     
 4/11/00      2974     (S)  CONFERENCE COMMITTEE APPOINTED                                                                      
 4/11/00      2974     (S)  *DONLEY, MILLER, HOFFMAN                                                                            
 4/14/00               (H)  225 AT  4:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                           
 4/14/00               (S)  225 AT  5:00 PM BELTZ 211                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
BROOKE MILES, Regulation of Lobbying                                                                                            
Alaska Public Offices Commission                                                                                                
Department of Administration                                                                                                    
PO Box 110222                                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska 99508-0222                                                                                                       
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information in regard to HB 225 and                                                                
the current laws.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MARCO PIGNALBERI, Staff                                                                                                         
     to Representative Cowdery                                                                                                  
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 204                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                                                                            
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information in regard to Section 6                                                                 
of SCS CSHB 225(JUD) am S.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 00-1, SIDE A                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
HB 225-CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND LEGISLATIVE ETHICS                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
[Please note that the tape counter numbers begin with 1000.]                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1005                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY called the Conference  Committee on HB 225 meeting                                                              
to order at 4:58  p.m.  Members present at the  call to order were                                                              
Representatives  Green and Croft  and Senators Donley,  Miller and                                                              
Hoffman.   Representative  Harris arrived  as the  meeting was  in                                                              
progress.   Before the committee is  the House version of  HB 225,                                                              
CSHB  225(JUD),  and  the  Senate  version of  HB  225,  SCS  CSHB                                                              
225(JUD) am S.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY proposed  that the committee draw  up a Conference                                                              
Committee committee  substitute (CS).  He then asked  if the House                                                              
agreed  with  the   modifications  of  the  House   version,  CSHB                                                              
225(JUD), that was transmitted to the Senate.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  referred to Section 14 of  SCS CSHB 225(JUD)                                                              
am S, which  is Section 3 of  CSHB 225(JUD).  Basically,  the same                                                              
language  was  used  save  the  word   "unlimited"  that  was  not                                                              
maintained  in the  Senate  version, which  Representative  Donley                                                              
believed  to be  a wise  change.   Therefore, in  regard to  those                                                              
sections, Representative Donley preferred  the Senate version, SCS                                                              
CSHB 225(JUD) am S.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY  pointed out that  Section 5 of SCS  CSHB 225(JUD)                                                              
am S parallels the House version.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT pointed  out  that [Section  5  of SCS  CSHB                                                              
225(JUD) am S] has some important  changes, including allowing the                                                              
governor  and  lieutenant  governor  to  start  [campaigning]  six                                                              
months earlier.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY remarked  that he  thought  it is  more than  six                                                              
months.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  GREEN  interjected his  belief  that [the  governor  and                                                              
lieutenant governor start campaigning] 18 months [earlier].                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY stated that  is the  way everybody  else is.   He                                                              
asked Senator  Hoffman if  he would like  to discuss Section  5 of                                                              
SCS CSHB  225(JUD) am S  since that was  a portion taken  from his                                                              
bill  last year.    Co-Chair Donley  recalled  that  the 18  month                                                              
period  for legislators  was  being kept,  but  those running  for                                                              
lieutenant governor and governor could [campaign] immediately.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  HOFFMAN  recalled  that  the  desire was  to  place  [the                                                              
lieutenant governor and the governor]  on equal footing with other                                                              
candidates that  aren't in  the legislature.   He noted  that this                                                              
was part of  his bill along with  Section 16 of SCS  CSHB 225(JUD)                                                              
am S.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 1264                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT inquired as  to what Section 5(2) does in SCS                                                              
CSHB 225(JUD) am S.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY  related his belief  that Section  5(2) bifurcates                                                              
between those  running for lieutenant  governor and  governor, and                                                              
those running for a legislative or  municipal seat.  Paragraph (2)                                                              
maintains  the   existing  system  for   those  that  run   for  a                                                              
legislative or municipal  seat.  However, paragraph  (2) says that                                                              
those  running   for lieutenant  governor and  governor can  begin                                                              
their campaign  earlier.   He pointed out  that Section  5(2) says                                                              
that those who  run for lieutenant governor and  governor can file                                                              
and begin their campaign on January  1 following the last election                                                              
in which a governor was elected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  GREEN  noted that  this  was  a  complaint in  the  last                                                              
election.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY also mentioned that  18 months is not much time to                                                              
travel around  Alaska as  a candidate  for governor or  lieutenant                                                              
governor.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT  agreed,  but  pointed  out  that  it  is  a                                                              
person's  choice to  both  serve  in the  legislature  and try  to                                                              
campaign for governor.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY said that doesn't  really apply.  He believed that                                                              
Representative Croft was thinking of the fund-raising problem.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT  inquired  as  to  why that  wouldn't  be  a                                                              
problem here.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY  explained  that  this doesn't  [only]  apply  to                                                              
legislators,  but   applies  to  everyone.    He   specified  that                                                              
currently, no  one can  file for governor  until 18 months  before                                                              
the election, which  was the point of Senator Hoffman's  bill:  18                                                              
months is not  enough time to get a gubernatorial  campaign going.                                                              
This  is  about  everybody.   However,  this  language  says  that                                                              
[restriction]  would remain for  municipal and legislative  races.                                                              
However, those running for lieutenant  governor and governor would                                                              
be allowed  to start earlier,  January 1 following  the governor's                                                              
election, under this language.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT  commented, then,  that  he  doesn't have  a                                                              
problem with that  change to Section 5 of SCS CSHB  225(JUD) am S,                                                              
what was Section 1 in CSHB 225(JUD).                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 1462                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MILLER  pointed out  that since  the Senate version  added                                                              
all the new sections perhaps the  easiest way to attack this is to                                                              
move through the bill section by section.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY  then turned to Section  1 of the  Senate version,                                                              
SCS CSHB 225(JUD) am S, which is the purpose section.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT remarked  that usually  the purpose  section                                                              
doesn't  carry any  import.   However,  the statute  in Section  2                                                              
refers  back  to it  as  a  method of  interpreting  the  statute.                                                              
Therefore,  he indicated  that [Section  1] has  more weight  than                                                              
normal.   Representative Croft emphasized  that he  didn't believe                                                              
the  burden  on legislators  should  be  minimized; he  felt  that                                                              
Section  1  does  establish  an intent  for  the  entire  campaign                                                              
finance  section  that  minimizes  the burden  on  candidates  and                                                              
legislators.   He pointed out that  there are many  more important                                                              
purposes  to  the  campaign  finance  laws,  including  the  level                                                              
playing  field  and  disclosure.     Therefore,  this  purpose  to                                                              
minimize the burden on legislators is inappropriate.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  GREEN indicated  that Representative  Croft  has a  good                                                              
point.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  MILLER said  that basically  the two  sections are  being                                                              
tied together.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR HOFFMAN inquired as to where that linkage occurs.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT  pointed  out  that  the  last  sentence  in                                                              
Section 2 says,  "If a statute is ambiguous, the  commission shall                                                              
consider  the  intent  of  the  legislature  in  interpreting  the                                                              
statute."   Therefore,  whenever  [the commission]  has a  problem                                                              
they  review it  in  order to  determine  what  will minimize  the                                                              
burdens  on candidates  and legislators  without compromising  the                                                              
efficacy  [of  those  laws].    He  believes  that  establishes  a                                                              
standard of the burden being the test.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR HOFFMAN  asked then  if Representative Croft's  suggestion                                                              
is to eliminate Section 1 and leave Section 2 intact.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR GREEN noted  that the last sentence [of  Section 2] would                                                              
have to be deleted.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  MILLER disagreed  because  if the  statute is  ambiguous,                                                              
then "the intent  of the legislature in interpreting  the statute"                                                              
should  be considered  no matter  who you  are.   If Section  1 is                                                              
deleted, Section 2  would be alright since it  wouldn't refer back                                                              
to Section 1.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1698                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY  moved that the  committee delete Section  1 [from                                                              
SCS CSHB  225(JUD) am  S].  There  being no  objection, it  was so                                                              
ordered.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY turned to Section 2.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT  asked if  the  beginning  of Section  2  is                                                              
[existing] language.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY replied yes.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT surmised then  that Section  2 gets  back to                                                              
the  purpose  with the  following  language:   "that  imposes  the                                                              
fewest  burdens necessary  on citizens,  candidates, and  groups".                                                              
Representative  Croft  reiterated   that  he  didn't  believe  the                                                              
interpretive   standard   should   be  the   fewest   burdens   on                                                              
[legislators]  but rather  what promotes  a  level playing  field,                                                              
more information to the public, et cetera.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY pointed out that  the language in [Section 2] does                                                              
specify  [part  of  the  intent] to  be  "to  provide  appropriate                                                              
information to the public."                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if AS  15.13.030 has other interpretive                                                              
standards.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  GREEN suggested  that the  committee come  back to  that                                                              
issue.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 1857                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY turned to Section  3, which adopts some guidelines                                                              
for polling information.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR GREEN commented that [Section 3] seems reasonable.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  inquired as to why people  shouldn't have to                                                              
pay for their own polls.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY  clarified that  people do have  to pay  for their                                                              
own polls.   He informed  the committee that  this says that  if a                                                              
candidate requests a  poll or the poll is designed  to benefit the                                                              
candidate, then it is considered a contribution.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT inquired as  to why anyone would ever pay for                                                              
their  own  poll   if  someone  else  could  do   it  outside  the                                                              
contribution (indisc.).                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY  explained that [a poll] cannot  primarily benefit                                                              
the candidate or  be requested by the candidate.   Co-Chair Donley                                                              
asked  Representative  Croft  why  should  a poll  for  which  the                                                              
candidate is solicited,  but with which the candidate  has no ties                                                              
be considered a  campaign contribution.  He said,  "Every time you                                                              
read  it  in the  paper,  under  the existing  statute,  you  just                                                              
violated the campaign laws."                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT said  that the point  on publicly  disclosed                                                              
polls does  make some sense.  However,  he believes this  is a way                                                              
to take polls "off budget."                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY  disagreed  and  pointed out  that  the  language                                                              
clearly  says that  [a poll  is considered]  a  contribution to  a                                                              
candidate if the  poll is requested by or designed  to benefit the                                                              
candidate.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  commented, "We're  going to end up  just not                                                              
requesting them  and groups are going  to be doing and  showing it                                                              
to us."   He believes  this is a soft  route around polls  and the                                                              
effect will be to take polling out  of campaign laws.  He inquired                                                              
as to how [a  candidate] would design a poll  to primarily benefit                                                              
[that candidate].                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY explained that if  the poll is designed to provide                                                              
information that would benefit the  candidate in a campaign, [that                                                              
would  be  a  poll that  is  designed  to  primarily  benefit  the                                                              
candidate].                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 2010                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT remarked,  "Well,  ... a  well  run poll  is                                                              
always  going to  benefit me  when I  know it  because that's  why                                                              
they're important."  He commented  that he is always interested in                                                              
poll results  because he obtains  information that he  didn't know                                                              
before.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  GREEN  pointed  out  that   such  a  poll  would  be  an                                                              
information poll,  which can't mention a candidate's  name, versus                                                              
a poll about the candidate.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT related his  belief that the poll can mention                                                              
his name.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR GREEN  directed Representative  Croft's attention  to the                                                              
following language  in Section 3,  "The results of a  poll limited                                                              
to issues and  not mentioning any candidate may  not be considered                                                              
a contribution."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  acknowledged that  language to be  the first                                                              
sentence  in  Section  3,  but directed  attention  to  the  other                                                              
sentence in Section  3.  The other sentence in Section  3 reads as                                                              
follows:   "The results  of a  poll provided  to a candidate  that                                                              
mention a  candidate may not be  considered a contribution  to the                                                              
candidate to whom  the poll results were provided  unless the poll                                                              
was requested by or designed primarily  to benefit the candidate."                                                              
Therefore, he  surmised that he  could request issue  polls, which                                                              
would be  off budget.  However,  the second sentence in  Section 3                                                              
allows the  results of  a poll   that mentions  a candidate  to be                                                              
provided to that candidate without  being a campaign contribution,                                                              
unless the poll was requested.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY interjected,  "Or  if it  was  done primarily  to                                                              
benefit you and if it had your name in it."                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  posed the following  situation in  which the                                                              
Republican/Democratic Party does  much polling for groups that are                                                              
either  affiliated  with the  organization  or interested  in  the                                                              
organization.    He related  his  understanding  that [Section  3]                                                              
allows  polls [limited] to issues  and polls designed primarily to                                                              
benefit  the  candidate   as  well  as  polls   requested  by  the                                                              
candidate.   Furthermore,  this  is not  in  the campaign  finance                                                              
disclosure laws under Section 1.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY  suggested that  the first  sentence of  Section 3                                                              
remain and  the second  sentence could  be deleted.   That  can be                                                              
done within the powers of the Conference Committee.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MILLER  agreed and specified  that things cannot  be added                                                              
that were not part  of either [version of the] bill.   However, he                                                              
believes that part of a sentence can be deleted.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY  commented that  information polls  are in  a gray                                                              
area.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  GREEN  interjected that  many  polls don't  mention  the                                                              
candidate.   He  clarified that  he meant  often only  one of  ten                                                              
questions in a poll mention the candidate.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if the  committee could [only] take out                                                              
words and sentences, but couldn't add anything.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY and SENATOR MILLER agreed.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  MILLER  noted that  the  committee  could try  to  obtain                                                              
limited  powers of  free  conference on  a  particular item  [that                                                              
required changes that necessitated adding language].                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT related his  belief that it would be silly if                                                              
reading  a poll  in  the paper  is  considered  a violation;  that                                                              
should be  addressed.  He  commented that  the nice thing  about a                                                              
poll is that you  know it and the opponent doesn't,  no matter the                                                              
topic.   There is  a certain  amount of  power in the  information                                                              
itself and  there is a  certain amount  of power because  only the                                                              
candidate knows it.   He asked, "What if it's  the second sentence                                                              
... and not the first?"                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY  pointed out  that  [the second  sentence]  would                                                              
still not deal with the [polls] that  don't mention the candidate.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT suggested  deleting, ".   The  results of  a                                                              
poll provided to  a candidate that mention a candidate  may not be                                                              
considered  a  contribution to  the  candidate  to whom  the  poll                                                              
results  were  provided".   Therefore,  Section  3 would  read  as                                                              
follows:   "The  results  of  a poll  limited  to issues  and  not                                                              
mentioning  any candidate  may not  be  considered a  contribution                                                              
unless the poll was requested by  or designed primarily to benefit                                                              
the  candidate."    [With  that language,]  he  surmised  that  he                                                              
couldn't request that the International  Brotherhood of Electrical                                                              
Workers (IBEW) do an expensive poll,  [a poll] that is off budget,                                                              
on all the important issues in his district.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY said  that  he liked  the  language suggested  by                                                              
Representative  Croft.   Furthermore,  he  thought  that could  be                                                              
accomplished within the committee's existing powers.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 2361                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved that the  committee adopt the following                                                              
amendment:                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, beginning line 8,                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
          Delete, ".  The results  of a poll provided to                                                                        
          a candidate  that mention a candidate  may not                                                                        
          be considered a contribution  to the candidate                                                                        
          to whom the poll results were provided"                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
There being no objection, it was so ordered.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY moved  on to  Section 4.   He  recalled that  the                                                              
Alaska  Public  Offices  Commission  didn't have  a  problem  with                                                              
[Section  4], which  clarifies that  a  [candidate]] can  register                                                              
more than one group.  [This section]  doesn't allow double dipping                                                              
or changes  in the actual limits.   [There seemed to  be agreement                                                              
that Section 4 was acceptable.]                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  MILLER mentioned  that the  committee  had already  dealt                                                              
with Section 5.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY directed the committee to Section 6.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 2440                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved that Section  6 of SCS CSHB 225(JUD) am                                                              
S be deleted.   He explained  that he didn't believe  there should                                                              
be, say, a Democratic Convention [funded] by the Teamsters.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY clarified  that  [Section 6]  doesn't allow  fund                                                              
raisers.   However, he said that  he would support saying  that it                                                              
can't be used for fund raisers if  the language is not clear.  The                                                              
intent [in  Section 6]  is to help  reduce the  cost of  the party                                                              
conventions so that average people can attend them.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT agreed  that it  doesn't specifically  state                                                              
that it can't be a fund raiser.   He didn't believe that corporate                                                              
sponsors or labor  union sponsors should be allowed  to contribute                                                              
outside the contribution limits.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR   DONLEY  specified   that   those   groups  can't   give                                                              
contributions at all.   He pointed out that [the  money collected]                                                              
is not a contribution but rather pays for the cost of the event.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   CROFT  said  that   it  would  be   considered  a                                                              
contribution if they could do it.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY noted,  however, that "they" can't use  it for any                                                              
purpose.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT posed  a situation  in which  a person  pays                                                              
$1,000 for a hall  or gives a candidate a $1,000.   He inquired as                                                              
to Ms. Miles', APOC's, [opinion].                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  HOFFMAN  related  his understanding  that  [a  candidate]                                                              
would be  prohibited from  going to  a function  such as  that and                                                              
passing out campaign brochures.   He said that was what was trying                                                              
to be included.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   CROFT   identified    the   Republican/Democratic                                                              
Convention as  the definitive political  party event in  which one                                                              
pays  for the  advertising,  food, hall  rental  and other  actual                                                              
costs.    This  can  be  done  and   there  is  no  limit  on  it.                                                              
Essentially,  "they" could  underwrite the  conventions and  other                                                              
political  party events  in an unlimited  manner.   Representative                                                              
Croft reiterated  that  he didn't  want to see  a political  party                                                              
convention  [funded] by  say, the  Teamsters of  BP as he  doesn't                                                              
believe it to be good public policy.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY offered  the following  suggestions.   First,  he                                                              
suggested specifying  that [contributions] can't be  for any fund-                                                              
raising event.   He also suggested  placing a limit on  the amount                                                              
[of the  contribution].   With those two  parameters, there  is no                                                              
way  that [a  group]  could take  over a  convention  as is  being                                                              
suggested.   Co-Chair Donley  mentioned  that the committee  would                                                              
need limited free powers to include those two limits.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  informed the committee that  he preferred to                                                              
keep the law the way it was.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 2615                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY moved  that the  committee  request limited  free                                                              
powers for Section  6 in order to explore alternatives  to make it                                                              
more acceptable.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT objected  and pointed  out that  there is  a                                                              
motion before the committee to delete Section 6.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  HOFFMAN  suggested that  this  matter  be placed  at  the                                                              
bottom  of the  committee's agenda.    There was  no objection  to                                                              
tabling it.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY  turned to Section 7  and asked Ms. Miles  if APOC                                                              
had problems with this section.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  inquired as to the current law  in regard to                                                              
this provision.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
BROOKE  MILES,  Regulation  of  Lobbying,  Alaska  Public  Offices                                                              
Commission, Department  of Administration, informed  the committee                                                              
that current law  requires candidates who use personal  funds in a                                                              
campaign   to   disclose   their   plan   to   repay   themselves.                                                              
Furthermore,  current  law establishes  a  limit  on what  can  be                                                              
repaid,  which  she believed  was  about $20,000  for  legislative                                                              
seats.   She pointed out  that [a candidate]  can't give  money to                                                              
his/her  own  campaign within  the  30  days before  the  campaign                                                              
period.  If a candidate uses personal  funds to purchase something                                                              
for the campaign  and that is not paid back within  72 hours, then                                                              
that is considered  a nonmonetary contribution to  the campaign in                                                              
which case  the candidate must  indicate whether he/she  wishes to                                                              
be repaid,  given that there are  surplus funds at  the conclusion                                                              
of the campaign.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES  turned to  the language [in  Section 7] and  emphasized                                                              
that the public  would have no way of knowing  whether a candidate                                                              
intends  to  repay  himself.    Additionally,  [the  language]  is                                                              
inconsistent  with   the  statutory  limits  regarding   how  much                                                              
candidates can repay  themselves from the money they  put in their                                                              
campaign.   Ms. Miles  also pointed  out that  the balance  of how                                                              
much has been  spent will not be [public] knowledge  until the end                                                              
of the campaign.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY  said  that he  didn't  understand  that  comment                                                              
because the language [in Section  7] "says that they would have to                                                              
reimburse to the candidate by the  campaign and report that before                                                              
the end of  each reporting period."   Therefore, he asked  how she                                                              
could  claim  that the  public  [didn't  know what  the  candidate                                                              
spent].                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES pointed out that the report  is due February 15, that is                                                              
the year  end report.   She said, "So,  the whole campaign  ... if                                                              
you'd  paid [$]80,000,  [$]180,000,  whatever  into your  campaign                                                              
that   you were  just spending this  money and  you don't  have to                                                              
report  it  till the  year  end  report  ... --  the  commission's                                                              
concern  is  the cumulative  amount  that  you've spent  and  each                                                              
report that  you file 30 days  before, seven days before,  and ten                                                              
days after each primary and general  election would be a whole new                                                              
thing when you file that February 15th report."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY  inquired  as to  what  would  be the  impact  of                                                              
referring to whatever the subsequent report was due.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES  asked if he  meant that it has  to be reported  on each                                                              
reporting period.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY replied yes.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES said that  would be the same as the  current law, except                                                              
in   regard   to  the   limit   at   which  the   candidate   pays                                                              
himself/herself back.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY noted  that then the candidate would  not have the                                                              
problem of  waiting until the end  of the reporting period  to pay                                                              
himself/herself  back.   He  related  his understanding  that  the                                                              
candidate could  pay himself/herself  back before  the end  of the                                                              
reporting period.  As it is now,  such action has to be declared a                                                              
loan and the candidate ...                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS.   MILES    interjected   that   the   candidate    could   pay                                                              
himself/herself back within 72 hours.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  related his understanding that  currently, a                                                              
candidate  can  place  an  unlimited   amount,  which  amounts  to                                                              
approximately  $20,000, back into  his/her campaign  although that                                                              
cannot be done within 30 days.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MILES clarified  that  in  the 30  days  before,  it is  only                                                              
$5,000.   In regard to Representative  Croft, the total  amount is                                                              
unlimited.   However, there is a  limit on what the  candidate can                                                              
pay himself/herself, which is $20,000.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 2819                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY  moved that  the committee delete  Section 7.   He                                                              
then suggested  that a solution could  be to report at  the end of                                                              
each period and specify that it doesn't  supersede the limits.  No                                                              
objection was stated.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY moved  that the committee delete  Section 8, which                                                              
seems to be technical.  No objection was stated.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY turned  to Section 9 and moved to  retain only the                                                              
language on page 5, line 4, referring  to thank you advertisements                                                              
as an  appropriate utilization  of campaign  funds.  He  suggested                                                              
deletion of the other changes included  in [Section 9 that are not                                                              
already in current law].                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  pointed out that  under the current  law, [a                                                              
candidate] could do  victory or thank you party  [cards] and thank                                                              
you  gifts.   Therefore,  [this  additional language]  allows  the                                                              
candidate to  insert the "thank  you advertisements" to  thank all                                                          
the volunteers that worked on the campaign.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY said  that  was  his motion.    No objection  was                                                              
stated.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 2877                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY continued  with  Section 10.    He believed  that                                                              
[Section  10]  included an  addition  in  the amount  of  retained                                                              
property, while  the remainder of  the section is similar  to what                                                              
was passed by the House.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  asked if these similar ideas  were placed in                                                              
a similar (indisc.).                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY specified  that the  problem with  many of  these                                                              
[provisions] is that  they have to show up in two  places, both in                                                              
the Ethics Law and the Campaign Finance Law, in order to work.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT asked  if the  House  version only  included                                                              
[these provisions] in one of the aforementioned places.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY reviewed  the provisions  included in Section  10                                                              
regarding  campaign  photographs,   seasonal  greeting  cards  and                                                              
campaign signs  to which  Co-Chair Green  agreed were included  in                                                              
the House  version.   Co-Chair Donley  said that  he believes  the                                                              
only substantive  change to be the  change that ["the  fair market                                                              
value of the property retained"]  may not exceed $5,000 versus the                                                              
previous amount of $2,500.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  agreed that  the House version  included the                                                              
idea of greeting cards and photographs.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MILLER  directed the committee  to page 5, line  9, of the                                                              
House version  [CSHB 225(JUD)], which  refers to photographs  of a                                                              
legislator.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  stated that he didn't find  any reference to                                                              
campaign signs in the House version.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR   DONLEY  recalled   that   when   the  original   ethics                                                              
legislation  was  [created]  there  was discussion  in  regard  to                                                              
campaign signs.   He recalled  that at  that time, they  were told                                                              
that  the campaign  signs would  not  have any  fair market  value                                                              
after the  conclusion of  the campaign.   Therefore, the  language                                                              
[in SCS  CSHB 225(JUD)  am S] clarifies  that such campaign  signs                                                              
don't have a value and don't count towards the limit.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  asked Ms. Miles if the committee  is missing                                                              
any issues in regards to greeting  cards, photographs and campaign                                                              
signs.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MILES answered  that the  commission doesn't  have a  problem                                                              
with  that.    She  specified  that  the  commission  agrees  that                                                              
campaign signs don't have any value.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT commented that  photographs are  problematic                                                              
because it is difficult to know which  are for campaigns and which                                                              
are  not.   He  asked  Ms.  Miles if  page  7,  lines 21  and  22,                                                              
clarifies the letter of intent and refers it back to statute.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES replied yes.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT inquired as  to when the amount to $2,500 for                                                              
a computer was established.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MILES   responded  that  the   $2,500  for  a   computer  was                                                              
established in 1996.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 3094                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT said  that  he didn't  have  a problem  with                                                              
Section 10 and thus he moved to adopt  Section 10.  There being no                                                              
objections, it was so ordered.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR GREEN moved that the committee  delete Section 11, except                                                              
AS 15.13.118  which addresses  public office  expense term  (POET)                                                              
accounts.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY   pointed  out  that  now  there   are,  per  the                                                              
constitution,  single member districts,  all the Senate  districts                                                              
are  twice as  big  as  the House  districts.   Therefore,  it  is                                                              
difficult to have the same POET designations  for both bodies when                                                              
they are  different sizes.   For example,  the mailing costs  in a                                                              
Senate  district  would be  twice  the cost  of  that  in a  House                                                              
district.   However,  the amount  in the legislation  is not  even                                                              
doubled for the Senate districts.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  GREEN interjected  that  the math  doesn't  [correlate],                                                              
even if the same number of years is used.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MILLER  suggested that Legislative Council  would probably                                                              
move to work off the counts that are currently available.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY specified  that [the amount] is based  on the term                                                              
of office,  which is four years for  the Senate and two  years for                                                              
the House.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR GREEN acknowledged that  the Senate [districts] are twice                                                              
as large  as the House  districts and the  term of office  for the                                                              
Senate is twice as long as is the House's term of office.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY informed the committee  that it is calculated on a                                                              
per year basis.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT  inquired as  to  what [subsection]  (c)  of                                                              
Section 11 would do.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY and GREEN stated  that [subsection] (c) of Section                                                              
11 is out.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 3232                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT  inquired   as  to  "the  justification  for                                                              
doubling  what  essentially  the initiative  and  our  legislation                                                              
passed in '96?"  He asked if there  had been 100 percent inflation                                                              
since 1996 or was it too low to begin with?                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY answered  that  it  was too  low  to begin  with.                                                              
Furthermore,  once the constitutional  amendment on  redistricting                                                              
passed [the state] was constitutionally  locked into single member                                                              
districts,  which  was  not the  case  prior  to  that time.    He                                                              
reiterated that with  the single member districts,  all the Senate                                                              
districts are twice as large as the House districts.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   CROFT  indicated   his  understanding   that  the                                                              
aforementioned  explanation  would  support the  proportion  being                                                              
changed.  He said, "We could lower  ours instead of raising yours,                                                              
I guess."                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY  acknowledged that the House's  [campaign account]                                                              
could  be  lowered  instead  of  raising  the  Senate's  [campaign                                                              
account] unless "you" want to increase  what the public pays "us."                                                              
He said that this  is a way to supplant what is  received from the                                                              
state.   This  is  private money,  leftover  campaign money,  that                                                              
replaces and  keeps the  state money from  increasing.   If office                                                              
accounts  had kept  pace  with inflation,  they  would be  $30,000                                                              
versus $6,000.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   CROFT  said  that   these  limits  were   set  by                                                              
initiative and by the legislature.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY  disagreed and stated  that the initiative  didn't                                                              
include anything about this issue.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MILLER  stated that technically  no initiative  passed the                                                              
ballot.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved to delete [AS 15.13].118.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MILLER objected.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY  clarified that the  committee has  already agreed                                                              
to delete  everything [in Section  11] except subsections  (a) and                                                              
(b) of AS 15.13.118.  Now the motion  is to delete subsections (a)                                                              
and (b) of AS 15.13.118 to which there was objection.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Upon a voice  vote, Representatives Harris and  Green and Senators                                                              
Hoffman,  Donley   and  Miller  voted  against   the  deletion  of                                                              
subsections  (a) and (b)  of AS 15.13.118.   Representative  Croft                                                              
voted in favor  of the deletion of  subsections (a) and  (b) of AS                                                              
15.13.118.   Therefore, subsections  (a) and  (b) of AS  15.13.118                                                              
were not deleted.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved on to  Section 12, which he believed to                                                              
be fine.  He asked if [Section 12]  is clarifying what had been an                                                              
informal opinion of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES explained that when campaign  finance reform was enacted                                                              
in 1996, a  portion of it restricted  the use of public  funds for                                                              
election purposes, including ballot  propositions.  She understood                                                              
that  there was  an ethics  opinion which  said that  if it  was a                                                              
normal practice ... [tape reversed to Side B].                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 00-1, SIDE B                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES  continued, "... and  you mentioned something  about the                                                              
ballot  proposition,  but  you do  not  form  a group,  you  don't                                                              
solicit funds  to support  a group."   She informed the  committee                                                              
that  there was  an  advisory opinion  regarding  this, which  was                                                              
issued by the  commission last year.  The commission's  only issue                                                              
with this  matter is  that it  provides a  different standard  for                                                              
legislators versus  other elected officials, who  can't use public                                                              
funds.  This  is a large issue for municipalities  with respect to                                                              
school board  funding, sewer projects  and things of  that nature.                                                              
[The municipality]  has to publicly appropriate the  money to send                                                              
out flyers supporting a particular issue.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 3320                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT  remarked   that  he  hadn't  realized  that                                                              
distinction, which may  be troubling.  However, he  felt that this                                                              
is more technical  and it becomes more difficult  if "we" can't do                                                              
this.   Therefore, Representative  Croft moved that  the committee                                                              
adopt  Section 12  of SCS  CSHB 225(JUD)  am  S.   There being  no                                                              
objection, it was so ordered.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY continued with Section  13 of SCS CSHB 225(JUD) am                                                              
S.  He explained that this section  allows for volunteer legal and                                                              
accounting services for parties.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT   pointed  out  that  it   also  applies  to                                                              
candidates  and  groups  as  well.    He  also  pointed  out  that                                                              
currently  that would  be  limited by  the  contribution limit  of                                                              
$500.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MILLER noted  that for a political party  the contribution                                                              
limit would be $5,000.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES agreed with Representative  Croft that after that [limit                                                              
the candidate]  would have  to pay  [the accountant or  attorney].                                                              
The difficulty  for the  commission in Section  13 is  the deleted                                                              
portion that begins  on page 10, line 31 through  page 11, line 3,                                                              
which is  a long-standing part of  the campaign finance  law.  Ms.                                                              
Miles specified that the commission  sees sub-subparagraph (iv) of                                                              
Section  13 as less  problematic than  the aforementioned  deleted                                                              
language.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  surmised, then, that if a  taxi driver licks                                                              
stamps [for  a campaign], he/she  is volunteering; however,  if [a                                                              
candidate has] a  taxi driver drive people to the  polls he/she is                                                              
taxiing.   If a lawyer  licks stamps  [for a campaign],  he/she is                                                              
volunteering; however, if the lawyer performs lawyer work ...                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES interjected  that a lawyer performing  lawyer work would                                                              
be  permitted under  sub-subparagraph  (iv)  of  Section 13,  with                                                              
which the commission doesn't have a problem.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HARRIS   stated  that  sub-subparagraph   (iv)  of                                                              
Section 13 merely specifies the two groups that (indisc.).                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  GREEN  related  his understanding  that  the  commission                                                              
merely wants to know how much it is.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES replied yes.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS related his  understanding, "But the rest of                                                              
them will  be excluded  if you put  back in  the section  that was                                                              
taken out."                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 3213                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY commented  that he believes the  committee has the                                                              
authority  to pick  and choose  changes.   Therefore, he  surmised                                                              
that  the committee  could  leave  that  existing language  in  as                                                              
suggested by  Ms. Miles and  sub-subparagraphs (iv) and  (v) could                                                              
still be maintained.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MILLER agreed  that the deleted language on  page 10, line                                                              
31 through page 11, line 3, could be left in.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT  inquired   as  to  what  is  special  about                                                              
attorney  and   accounting  services   that  would   warrant  this                                                              
exemption.   He  asked if  there would  be any  disclosure of  the                                                              
amount.  He also  asked, "If you're writing it out  of the statute                                                              
here, does it just go off the books?"                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MILES clarified  that it  [attorney  or accounting  services]                                                              
would  not  be  considered  a  contribution.     She  agreed  with                                                              
Representative Croft  that the amount would never be  known by the                                                              
public.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   CROFT   related   his  understanding   that   the                                                              
commission would not have a problem  with adding a political party                                                              
so  long  as  the  same  limits  are  maintained  on  professional                                                              
services.   Therefore, a  political party  would be included,  but                                                              
would fall under the existing rules.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES answered yes.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR GREEN  specified, then,  that the committee  would [agree                                                              
to] Section 13 with the deleted material reinserted.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT stated that  he didn't  have a problem  with                                                              
inserting political party so long  as [the limits] are maintained.                                                              
He inquired as  to [the commission's opinion]  on sub-subparagraph                                                              
(v) regarding mass mailings.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES  informed the  committee that  the commission  felt that                                                              
the language  in sub-subparagraph  (v) regarding mass  mailings is                                                              
specific  enough  that  it  would   include  all  of  the  party's                                                              
candidates; the commission is comfortable with that.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY  commented that  there is a  problem.  He  posed a                                                              
situation  in which the  AIP party  wants to  mail out a  brochure                                                              
with  its candidate,  a calculation  has  to be  performed.   That                                                              
calculation is  difficult because some may be  different districts                                                              
than others.  He indicated that the  calculation includes how much                                                              
of a contribution that is to each  candidate and it may or may not                                                              
exceed  the  limit  that  a  party   can  give  to  an  individual                                                              
candidate.    He   said  that  telling  people   who  the  party's                                                              
candidates are seems like basic function of parties.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MILLER asked:                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Would the  commission have a problem because  instead of                                                                   
     sending out a  mass mailer all over Anchorage,  that has                                                                   
     everyone in  Anchorage running, then they've  sent it to                                                                   
     Senate  district whatever  and they  have the  governor,                                                                   
     lieutenant  governor,  U.S.  Senator,  Congressmen,  the                                                                   
     Senate  State  Senator for  that  district  and the  two                                                                   
     House  Reps, ... if  they're candidates  in those  races                                                                   
     filed  to  that  Senate district  and  the  next  Senate                                                                   
     district  would get  all of  the top;  only their  state                                                                   
     Senator and two House districts would be different.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MILES said  that the  commission realized  that the  language                                                              
didn't specify that it had to be  the central party and thus could                                                              
be  a district.   However,  it  would still  have  to include  the                                                              
entire  slate.     She  pointed  out  that  this   was  an  actual                                                              
circumstance that  occurred in one district in  the 1998 election.                                                              
She explained that a party had already  "maxed out" on a candidate                                                              
and the party  wanted to do a district-wide mailing  that included                                                              
the candidate.  That was not permitted  because technically it was                                                              
a contribution [to that candidate that had already "maxed out"].                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY pointed  out that a percentage of  that would have                                                              
gone to that candidate.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  stated that the candidate would  have to pay                                                              
for it.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES indicated  agreement and recalled that  is what happened                                                              
in that election.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT  asked if  it  could include  anything  else                                                              
besides photographs and biographies.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY  said that he believes  the intent was  to attempt                                                              
to narrow it down.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 3039                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   CROFT  moved  that   the  committee   adopt  [the                                                              
provision regarding]  the mass  mailing as  well as the  political                                                              
party,  but   eliminate  sub-subparagraph  (iv)  and   return  the                                                              
professional services  language [that is currently  deleted in the                                                              
SCS CSHB 225(JUD) am S].                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MILLER  objected.  He said  that he has difficulty  in not                                                              
allowing  a person  to contribute  their time  and energy  because                                                              
setting a dollar amount establishes  a threshold by which a person                                                              
can contribute  a limited  amount  [of time and  energy] to  their                                                              
political  beliefs.   Senator Miller  acknowledged  that there  is                                                              
value  attached [to that time and energy].                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR HOFFMAN  suggested leaving it  to the party  and eliminate                                                              
the candidate.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  MILLER agreed  that the  candidate  could be  eliminated;                                                              
however,  he expressed  difficulty  in restricting  the  political                                                              
party  itself.   He  felt it  appropriate to  restrict  it to  the                                                              
candidate or group.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  MILLER  moved  that the  committee  amend  Representative                                                              
Croft's  motion by  deleting "candidate,  group, or"  on page  11,                                                          
line 8, of sub-subparagraph  (iv) and leave the  remainder of sub-                                                              
subparagraph  (iv) in  the bill.   There being  no objection,  the                                                              
amendment to the motion was adopted.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 2912                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY  clarified that  the committee  now has  before it                                                              
the motion to  adopt Section 13 and reinsert the  deleted language                                                              
on page  10, line  31, through page  11, line  3, and on  page 11,                                                              
line 8 delete  "candidate, group, or".  There  being no objection,                                                          
the amendment to the motion was adopted.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved that the  committee adopt Section 14 of                                                              
SCS CSHB  225(JUD)  am S.   There being  no objection,  it was  so                                                              
ordered.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY  moved to delete  Section 15 of SCS  CSHB 225(JUD)                                                              
am S.  No objection was stated.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY  continued with Section  16, which was  taken from                                                              
Senator Hoffman's bill last year.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR HOFFMAN  explained that [Section  16] is in response  to a                                                              
problem he  encountered when Tim  Grussendorf, whose father  was a                                                              
legislator, worked for him last session.   However, because of the                                                              
nepotism  law Tim Grussendorf  couldn't  work for Senator  Hoffman                                                              
during special sessions  or the summers, which  he believes didn't                                                              
make much sense.   Senator Hoffman recognized  [the difficulty] if                                                              
Mr. Grussendorf had worked in the House of Representatives.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY  clarified  for Representative  Croft  that  [the                                                              
statute]  had  not  addressed  such   situations  in  relation  to                                                              
interims.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT recognized that  subsection (d) of Section 16                                                              
resolves  Senator Hoffman's  problem.   Representative Croft  said                                                              
that he didn't have any problem with Section 16.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 2803                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR HOFFMAN moved  that the committee adopt Section  16 of SCS                                                              
CSHB 225(JUD) am S.  There being  no objection, it was so ordered.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY continued with Section  17 of SCS CSHB 225(JUD) am                                                              
S.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  pointed out that this returns  to the intent                                                              
language and  he suggested that  the entire intent  language could                                                              
be voted on.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR HOFFMAN  noted that the  intent language had  already been                                                              
eliminated.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY expressed  his desire to have a new  draft [CS] to                                                              
review.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR GREEN remarked  that perhaps, in that  case, [Section 17]                                                              
should be left in.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  informed the committee that  in both Section                                                              
17  and the  other [intent  section, Section  2,] it  adds to  the                                                              
general duties of the committee and  the commission.  He said that                                                              
language  is  being  inserted  that   says,  "Don't  be  any  more                                                              
burdensome on us  than necessary."  He felt that  without Sections                                                              
2 and 17, both  interpretive sections, the committee  would have a                                                              
better CS.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 2712                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  moved that  the committee delete  Sections 2                                                              
and 17.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  GREEN  indicated that  "they"  would  like to  have  the                                                              
intent and thus this may be a red flag.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR HOFFMAN agreed that when  there is a question it has to be                                                              
interpreted  somehow.    He  inquired   as  to  how  it  would  be                                                              
interpreted; more restrictively or less restrictively?                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   CROFT  pointed   out  that   there  are   general                                                              
guidelines on interpreting  statutes, which take  into account the                                                              
intent of  the legislature as well  as other factors.   He related                                                              
his belief that  the "shall" language creates a  priority and thus                                                              
he preferred to leave it to the normal interpretive techniques.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY remarked,  "I wish they were normal;  they've used                                                              
some very creative  techniques over the years,  including ignoring                                                              
the First Amendment a couple of times."                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that has not been his experience.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY posed  the  sign  law issue  in  Fairbanks as  an                                                              
example  of a  direct violation  of  First Amendment  rights.   He                                                              
acknowledged that  violation was  recognized after it  was pointed                                                              
out and the law was rewritten.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR HOFFMAN noted his preference to leave [Section 17] in.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  GREEN commented  that leaving  the section  in makes  it                                                              
easier  to  take  out  later  versus  [deleting  Section  17]  and                                                              
attempting to bring it back in.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Upon a voice vote, Representative  Croft voted for the deletion of                                                              
Sections  2  and  17 and  Representatives  Harris  and  Green  and                                                              
Senators Hoffman, Donley and Miller  voted against the deletion of                                                              
Sections 2  and 17.    Therefore,  with a vote  of 1-5  the motion                                                              
failed and Sections 2 and 17 were not deleted.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY continued with Section  18 and inquired as to what                                                              
it does.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES  clarified that it  is the old  $5,000 per year  for the                                                              
office  account.   She  indicated  that  it  is necessary  due  to                                                              
maintaining AS 15.13.118 in Section 11.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY  asked if  there  was  any objection  to  keeping                                                              
Section 18.  There being no objection, it was so ordered.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY  moved on  to Section 19  and remarked that  a new                                                              
effective  date is necessary.   He  recalled that  Section  19 was                                                              
necessary because  there were changes that occurred  last year and                                                              
thus  it  was necessary  to  make  it contingent  based  on  those                                                              
changes becoming effective.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES stated  that [those] are done and thus  Section 19 is no                                                              
longer necessary.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 2509                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  moved that the committee delete  Section 19.                                                              
There being no objection, it was so ordered.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY continued  with Section  20 and  asked Ms.  Miles                                                              
what would work best.  He recognized  that [there is no desire] to                                                              
interfere with the campaign cycle.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES indicated agreement.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR HOFFMAN suggested the year 2002.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY  related  his  understanding  that  limited  free                                                              
powers aren't necessary to change an effective date.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MILLER concurred.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES stated  that January 1, 2001, would be  preferable to an                                                              
immediate effective date                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 2463                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY  indicated  that  the committee  agreed  upon  an                                                              
effective date of January 1, 2001.  No objection was stated.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MILLER reminded the committee  that Section 6 still needed                                                              
to be addressed.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved that the  committee delete Section 6 of                                                              
SCS CSHB 225(JUD) am S.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY agreed with Representative  Croft that [the groups                                                              
mentioned in  Section 6] shouldn't  be allowed to do  fund raisers                                                              
and there should  be a cap on  that.  However, he felt  that there                                                              
is a legitimate purpose for this  which would help lower the costs                                                              
of such  events so that average  citizens can attend.   Therefore,                                                              
he felt that with more sideboards  Representative Croft's concerns                                                              
could  be addressed  while facilitating  [a lower  cost for  these                                                              
events].                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  commented on the proliferation  of corporate                                                              
sponsorships in every arena.  He  didn't believe that there should                                                              
be  corporate   sponsorships  of   political  party   conventions.                                                              
Representative  Croft indicated  that  his objection  may be  more                                                              
philosophical.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  MILLER  informed  the  committee  that  he  would  rather                                                              
maintain  Section 6  because  it  is the  current  law.   Perhaps,                                                              
Section  6  could  be  dealt  with at  a  later  time  in  another                                                              
legislature.    He agreed  with  Co-Chair  Donley that  with  more                                                              
sideboards this section  could be reworked, but  maybe there isn't                                                              
enough time to do so.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 2377                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MARCO PIGNALBERI,  Staff to  Representative Cowdery,  Alaska State                                                              
Legislature, informed  the committee that Section  6 was requested                                                              
by the Republican  National Committee which has  had opportunities                                                              
for  regional party  conventions  to  come to  Alaska.   In  other                                                              
states [the  state] is  able to underwrite  the cost  of corporate                                                              
contributions, but Alaska is not  able to do that which relates to                                                              
the  aforementioned  issue  of lowering  the  cost  for   a  party                                                              
participant   to   engage   in  such   activities.      There   is                                                              
correspondence    from   the    Republican   National    Committee                                                              
representative on this matter.  (Indisc.).                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT repeated his motion to delete Section 6.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY  announced  that   he  would  support  requesting                                                              
limited  free powers  in  order to  rewrite  Section  6 with  more                                                              
limitations.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MILLER  suggested that Co-Chair Donley  and Representative                                                              
Croft  develop  some compromise  language  to  bring back  to  the                                                              
committee.   He said that  Representative Croft's motion  could be                                                              
left on the table as pending while the CS is being drafted.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY pointed  out  that the  committee  could also  go                                                              
ahead and request limited free powers for Section 6.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT  reiterated   that  his  objection  is  more                                                              
theoretical than technical.   He asked if there is  any other area                                                              
for which the  committee would be requesting limited  free powers.                                                              
There  was discussion  that  indicated that  there  were no  other                                                              
areas requiring  such a request.  Therefore,  Representative Croft                                                              
believed that addressing the motion  before the committee and then                                                              
determining whether  the committee wanted to request  limited free                                                              
powers [on Section 6] would be most appropriate.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Upon a voice vote, Representative  Croft and Senator Hoffman voted                                                              
for  the deletion  of  Section 6  and Representatives  Harris  and                                                              
Green and  Senators Donley and  Miller voted against  the deletion                                                              
of Section  6.   Therefore, with a  vote of 2-4  Section 6  of SCS                                                              
CSHB 225(JUD) am S was not deleted.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 2185                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  DONLEY moved  that the  committee  request limited  free                                                              
powers in order to reach some compromise  language in Section 6 of                                                              
SCS CSHB 225(JUD)  am S.  He  asked if there was any  objection to                                                              
the motion.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR GREEN noted his agreement.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  commented that didn't believe  the committee                                                              
should do so.  However, he acknowledged  that the committee wanted                                                              
to proceed in this request and thus  he would not object merely to                                                              
have another vote.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY  remarked that requesting limited  free powers now                                                              
could save  time.  He recognized  that obtaining approval  for the                                                              
request is not certain.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT mentioned that he didn't mind the attempt.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  GREEN   indicated  that  this  [request]   seems  a  bit                                                              
premature.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR DONLEY asked  if there is any objection  to the motion to                                                              
request limited free  powers on Section 6 of SCS  CSHB 225(JUD) am                                                              
S.  There being no objection, it was so ordered.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
There being  no further business  before the Conference  Committee                                                              
on HB 225, the  meeting was recessed to the call  of the chairs at                                                              
6:17 p.m.                                                                                                                       

Document Name Date/Time Subjects