Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/14/2000 04:58 PM House 225
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
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 |
|---|