Legislature(2009 - 2010)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/15/2010 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB36 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 15, 2010
1:36 p.m.
1:36:13 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Hawker, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Vice-Chair
Representative Allan Austerman
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Les Gara
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Woodie Salmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Kyle Johansen, Sponsor; Sonia Christensen,
Staff, Representative Kyle Johansen, Sponsor; Paula
Scavera, Legislative Liaison, Department of Labor and
Workforce Development; Grey Mitchell, Director, Division of
Labor Standards and Safety, Department of Labor and
Workforce Development.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Holly Hill, Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission; Tom
Dosik, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law; Tim
June, Self, Haines.
SUMMARY
HB 36 INITIATIVES: CONTRIBUTIONS/ PROCEDURES
HB 36 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 36
"An Act prohibiting initiatives that are substantially
similar to those that failed within the previous two
years; relating to financial disclosure reporting
dates for persons, groups, and nongroup entities that
expend money in support of or in opposition to
initiatives, initiative information contained in
election pamphlets, initiative petitions, initiative
petition circulators, and public hearings for
initiatives; and requiring a standing committee of the
legislature to consider initiatives scheduled for
appearance on the election ballot."
1:37:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KYLE JOHANSEN, SPONSOR, spoke to the
legislation. He appreciated the committee's cautious
deliberation.
Representative Johansen spoke to Amendment 1.
Page 2, line 6:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"Sec.3.AS 15.13.050 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(c) if a group intends to make contributions
or expenditures only in support of or opposition
to a single initiative on the ballot, the title
or common name of the initiative must be part of
the name of the group. If the group intends to
make contributions or expenditures only in
opposition to a single initiative on the ballot,
the group's name must clearly state that it
opposes that initiative by using a word such as
"opposes," "opposing," "in opposition to," and
"against" in the group's name."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
SONIA CHRISTENSEN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KYLE JOHANSEN,
SPONSOR explained Amendment 1. She noted that the amendment
echoes 15.13.050 for ballot measures. She informed that
15.13.050 states that groups formed to support or oppose
certain candidates must state the candidate's name and
title to clarify their purpose. The title of the ballot
measure must exist in the group's title making their
support or opposition apparent.
1:42:11 PM
HOLLY HILL, DIRECTOR, ALASKA PUBLIC OFFICES COMMISSION (via
teleconference) agreed that Amendment 1 covers a gap in the
statute.
Representative Gara questioned the word "only" on lines 1
and 4. He proposed a hypothetical suggestion in which a
group might oppose many different initiatives. He opined
that the amendment applies if the group intends to make
contributions or expenditures "only" in support or
opposition. He suggested dropping the word only.
Representative Johansen clarified that the intent of the
amendment was to include the title in the disclosure.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if a citizen was in support or
opposition of an initiative, would reporting requirements
be necessary. Ms. Hill replied that a provision in law for
control groups solely to support or oppose a candidate
increases group accountability.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the opposition of candidates
would change the dynamics of their reporting requirements.
Ms. Hill was unsure.
TOM DOSIK, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
(via teleconference) responded that if a group engages in
activity supporting greater than one ballot initiative or
more than one candidate then a different set of reporting
requirements exist. He believed that the amendment states
that groups can weigh in on ballot initiatives without
changing their names.
Co-Chair Stoltze requested comment on the reference
language. Mr. Dosik responded that he could provide the
requested language for the committee later in the day.
1:46:54 PM
Representative Gara suggested dropping the word only as it
would allow easy evasion of the provision.
Co-Chair Stoltze introduced Amendment 2.
Page 1, line 1, following "initiatives":
Insert "and those who file or organize in order
to file them"
Page 4, following line 30:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec. 8. AS 15.13.400(8) is amended to read:
(8) "group" means
(A) every state and regional executive committee
of a political party; [AND]
(B) any combination of two or more individuals
acting jointly who organize for the
principal purpose of influencing the outcome
of one or more elections and who take action
the major purpose of which is to influence
the outcome of an election; a group that
makes expenditures or receives contributions
with eh authorization or consent, express or
implied, or under the control, direct or
indirect, of a candidate shall be considered
to be controlled by that candidate; a group
whose major purpose is to further the
nomination, election, or candidacy of only
one individual, or intends to expend more
than 50 percent of its money on a single
candidate, shall be considered to be
controlled by that candidate and its actions
done with the candidate's knowledge and
consent unless within 10 days from the date
the candidate learns of the existence of the
group the candidate files with the
commission, on a form provided by the
commission, an affidavit that the group is
operating without the candidate's control; a
group organized for more than one year
preceding an election and endorsing
candidates for more than one office or more
than one political party is presumed not to
be controlled by a candidate; however, a
group that contributes more than 50 percent
of its money to ore on behalf of one
candidate shall be considered to support
only on candidate for purposes of AS
15.13.070, whether or not control of the
group has been disclaimed by the candidate;
and
(C) any combination of two or more individuals
acting jointly who organize for the
principal purpose of filing an initiative
proposal application under AS 15.45.020 or
who file an initiative proposal application
under AS 15.45.020.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Ms. Hill informed that Section 1 of the original bill
states "every individual person nongroup entity or group
contributing a total of $500 organized for the principal
purpose of filing an initial proposal application." The
department suggested that the definition of group could be
modified to clarify that initiative proposals are included;
otherwise a person might argue that they are exempt because
the definition of group includes people who organize
against an election.
Representative Johansen spoke in support of the amendment,
but deferred to the committee's opinion.
Representative Gara opined that the amendment requires only
registration and donor disclosure for people supporting an
initiative. Ms. Hill commented that the amendment requires
reporting during the time period after submission of the
application until certification of the ballot initiative
and requires all expenses to influence the approval of the
ballot initiative application.
1:51:17 PM
Representative Gara asked if the amendment addresses a
situation in which a person donates money to an initiative
proposal following its debut on the ballot. Ms. Hill
responded that reporting that occurs up to the
certification of the initiative is zero reporting. However,
the staff of the Alaska Public Office Commission has
interpreted that expenditures made to influence the ballot
measure would be reportable after that date. She understood
that the amendment would include expenditures to influence
the approval of the ballot initiative proposal. She
provided an example.
Mr. Dosik agreed with Ms. Hill's statement. The original
bill read "groups contributing a total of $500 or more to a
group organized for the principal purpose of filing an
initiative." Group has a very specific meaning. A group is
organized for the principle purpose of influencing the
outcome of an election. He asked that the definition of
group be expanded.
Representative Gara asked about this year's ballot
initiative on abortion. The provision suggests that if a
group is organized to place the issue on the ballot then
donors' names must be disclosed but if a group is organized
to stop an issue then the disclosure is not required.
Mr. Dosik was not aware of incidents of organization to
counter a process. Representative Gara informed that groups
occasionally organize to stop initiatives. Mr. Dosik
understood that groups actively campaign against issues
once they are on the ballot.
1:55:31 PM
Ms. Hill commented that if Part C read that "any
combination of individuals acting jointly who organize for
the principal purpose of influencing the filing of an
initiative proposal," that might accommodate the concerns
of Representative Gara. Co-Chair Stoltze requested further
input from Ms. Dosik.
Co-Chair Stoltze addressed Amendment 3 by request of the
administration.
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "and to ballot initiatives"
Insert ", to ballot initiative and referenda, to
issues placed on the ballot to determine whether a
constitutional convention shall be called, a debt
shall be contracted, an advisory question shall be
approved or rejected, or a municipality shall be
incorporated, and to constitutional amendments
submitted to the public for a vote"
Page 2, line 9, following "15.13.060":
Insert "15.13.074(b)
Page 7, line 13, following "APPLICABILITY":
Insert "(a)"
Page 7, following line 15:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) This Act applies only to a ballot
proposition, as that term defined in AS 15.13.065(c),
but excluding an initiative covered under (a) of this
section, placed on the ballot after the first
statewide election on or after the effective date of
this Act."
Ms. Hill stated that the insertion of 15.13.074(b) into the
list of exceptions of 15.13.065(c) would eliminate a gap in
the statutes. She noted recent cases in which respondents
have argued that because 15.13.074(b) was not listed in the
laundry list of exceptions in 15.13.065(c) it did not apply
to ballot initiatives. The amendment's addition to the
statute would clarify.
Representative Johansen expressed concern about the
amendment and the lack of new legislation filed by the
administration to repair the issue.
1:58:45 PM
Representative Austerman queried the title change.
Ms. Hill directed the question to the Attorney General.
Mr. Dosik was unaware of the title change's history.
Co-Chair Stoltze suspected that the title change reflects
the contents of the bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted the legislation's labor issue.
Representative Austerman asked who drafted the amendment.
Co-Chair Stoltze replied the administration.
Representative Johansen explained that his aide was working
with the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) but the
Attorney General's office was not in contact with APOC.
Co-Chair Stoltze commented on the accountability of
Representative Johansen and his staff.
Representative Doogan offered another amendment that would
expand disclosure in a few ways: First to ensure that if
someone is either supporting or opposing an initiative that
would provide the names of the three largest contributors.
2:03:08 PM
The second suggestion is requiring people who contribute to
initiatives to follow the same requirements as those
contributing to a political campaign. He offered to work
with the sponsor's office to draft the amendment.
Co-Chair Stoltze requested a general analysis of the
section related to the employee requirements.
GREY MITCHELL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS AND
SAFETY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
commented that the issue was whether the workers hired to
gather signatures for ballot initiatives would be
considered employees or independent contractors. He stated
that there was no real problem with the bill. He explained
that the email responses were posted.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if many investigations were
performed by the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development.
2:06:52 PM
PAULA SCAVARA, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT replied that if a person files
unemployment, the department investigates whether or not
the company paid unemployment insurance tax. If the company
has not then an investigation is initiated. She noted that
a certain number of random audits are accomplished each
year. Co-Chair Stoltze asked if an audit of professional
initiative gatherers had taken place. Ms. Scavera did not
know the answer to the question.
Representative Fairclough asked if a wage-an-hour employee
is required to collect signatures. Mr. Mitchell responded
that all factors must be considered to determine whether or
not the person is an employee versus an independent
contractor.
2:09:47 PM
Representative Fairclough referred to Section 10. She asked
if the section included a requirement to hire a person
under the wage-an-hour laws of the state. Mr. Mitchell
answered no.
Representative Fairclough asked if the section precludes a
contract. Mr. Mitchell responded no.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if a person is hired on a
contingency fee, would it create greater scrutiny if the
person is a traditional employer. Mr. Mitchell responded
that the different methods of payment tend to create a red
flag regarding an independent contractor.
2:12:25 PM
Representative Gara expressed concerns about whether the
bill would make gathering signatures too expensive to
pursue initiatives. He addressed the provision on wages. He
asked if an employee is required to be paid around the
clock while travelling. Mr. Mitchell responded that the
requirement is that a person is paid while doing productive
work and is not required to pay around the clock.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked to know the impact of the
legislation on volunteers. Mr. Mitchell did not know.
Representative Gara asked about a provision in which the
Lt. Governor must organize public hearings. He supposed
that the Lt. Governor could refuse the public hearings.
2:16:30 PM
Representative Johansen agreed that committee work on the
language would be helpful. Representative Johansen could
not imagine the Lt. Governor using a trick to kill a ballot
measure.
Representative Fairclough discussed matching the limits to
$3,000 from outside contributions. She asked if the aspect
was included in an amendment. Ms. Christensen responded
that the legal opinion dated February 25, 2010 listed on
Page 3, Question 2 highlights that the legislature cannot
limit the amount of contributions coming into ballot
measures. The U. S. Supreme Court has differentiated
between campaign contributions and ballot measure
contributions. Ballot measure contributions are considered
a free speech issue; therefore, a limit on the amount of
money inhibits free speech.
Representative Johansen added that an individual can be
unduly influenced or corrupted but an idea cannot.
Representative Fairclough understood that the state can
limit people contributing but their residency is without
influence.
TIM JUNE, SELF, HAINES (via teleconference), stated that
the initiative process is critical and protected by the
Alaska Constitution. The initiative process is not a right
granted to the people, but a power reserved by the people
and it transcends any right granted. He asked for
consideration of whether the process diminishes or
restricts the power of the people or unnecessarily burdens
the sponsor's first amendment rights in terms of free
speech and gathering signatures. He opined that the
financial burden placed on petitioners with the 30 district
requirement is extreme and precludes the intent of
initiatives. He encouraged a return to allowing the
initiative to qualify by a certain number of voter
signatures rather than the district requirements.
2:25:30 PM
Mr. June addressed Section 8 which includes a clause
stating that initiatives must be confined to one subject.
He opined that prohibiting a similar initiative within a
two year limit was counter to the constitutional intent. He
stated that increasing the burden would counter the power
of the people to pass necessary initiatives.
Mr. June commented on fraudulent signature gatherers who
are paid large amounts of money for organizing signature
gathering and affecting it. He objected to the idea
established in Section 19 and the presence of a standing
committee in the legislature. He stated that the power
resides in the people and the legislature must respect
that.
2:30:18 PM
Mr. June addressed the zero fiscal note. He suggested
revisiting the zero nature of the note as the state is
required to hold public hearings in the four judicial
districts and some cost will be attached.
Co-Chair Stoltze commented that he was opposed to the
change in the Constitution. Mr. June stated that his
comments were not presented as a criticism, but merely an
observation of the reality of the effect of the proposed
legislation.
Representative Gara asked about the section including the
provision stating that if an initiative failed one year it
is not eligible the next. Co-Chair Stoltze responded that
the section was in an older version of the bill.
HB 36 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:32 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB36.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM HJUD 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| HB36 HJUD Pkt. 4.13.09.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM HJUD 4/13/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB36 HJUD Pkt. 4.13.09.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM HJUD 4/15/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB36 OOG FN.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM HJUD 4/15/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB036-OOG-LtGOV-4-17-09.pdf |
HFIN 4/18/2009 8:30:00 AM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| 01 HB36 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| 02 HB36 CSSSHB36(JUD) v. S.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| 03 HB36 HJUD Amendments.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| 04 HB36 Sectional.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| 06 HB36 Letters SupportOpposition.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| 07 HB36 Legal Opinions.pdf |
HFIN 4/18/2009 8:30:00 AM HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| 08 HB36 Back up.pdf |
HFIN 4/18/2009 8:30:00 AM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| SSHB 36 Hearing Request Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 4/18/2009 8:30:00 AM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| SSHB 36 Hearing Request Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 4/18/2009 8:30:00 AM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| test |
HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| SSHB 36 Sponsor Statement .pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| HB 36 Sectional Analysis Version S CSSSHB36 Recent.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| SSHB 36 Backup.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| HB36 NEW Fiscal Note Admin.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| HB36 Thoma Opinion.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| SSHB036-OOG-LtGOV-3-12-10.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB 36 LAA Legal Memo.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB 36 DOL Answers to Inquiry.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB 36 Amendments #1-3 Stoltze.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 36 |