Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120
03/03/2008 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB414 | |
| HB355 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 355 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 414 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 255 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 3, 2008
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 414
"An Act relating to the crime victim compensation fund."
- MOVED HB 414 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 355
"An Act requiring the disclosure of the identity of certain
persons, groups, and nongroup entities that expend money in
support of or in opposition to ballot initiatives and the
aggregate amounts of significant contributions or expenditures
made by those persons, groups, and nongroup entities."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 255
"An Act relating to dual sentencing of certain juvenile
offenders; amending Rule 24.1, Alaska Delinquency Rules; and
providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 414
SHORT TITLE: CRIME VICTIM COMPENSATION FUND
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
02/25/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/25/08 (H) JUD, FIN
03/03/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 355
SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURE OF CONTRIBUTIONS: INITIATIVES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JOHANSEN
02/06/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/06/08 (H) JUD, FIN
02/13/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/13/08 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/22/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/22/08 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/03/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JANE W. PIERSON, Staff
to Representative Jay Ramras
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 414 on behalf of the sponsor,
the House Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by
Representative Ramras.
GERAD G. GODFREY, Chair
Violent Crimes Compensation Board (VCCB)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 414.
REPRESENTATIVE KYLE JOHANSEN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 355.
SONIA CHRISTENSEN, Staff
to Representative Kyle Johansen
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 355, testified on
behalf of the sponsor, Representative Johansen.
CHRISTINA ELLINGSON, Acting Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 355.
CHIP THOMA
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 355.
STEVE CLEARY, Executive Director
Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AkPIRG)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 355.
MARGARET PATON-WALSH, Assistant Attorney General
Labor and State Affairs Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 355.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:10:34 PM. Representatives Samuels,
Dahlstrom, Coghill, and Ramras were present at the call to
order. Representatives Lynn, Holmes, Gruenberg arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 414 - CRIME VICTIM COMPENSATION FUND
1:11:55 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 414, "An Act relating to the crime victim
compensation fund."
1:12:06 PM
JANE W. PIERSON, Staff to Representative Jay Ramras, Alaska
State Legislature, presented HB 414 on behalf of Representative
Ramras, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, sponsor. She
explained that the Violent Crimes Compensation Board (VCCB) was
established under AS 18.67 in 1972 to help mitigate the
financial hardships victims suffer as a direct result of violent
crime. The board may compensate medical expenses, counseling
costs, lost income, lost support, funeral expenses, and/or other
reasonable costs sustained by Alaskan victims of violent crimes.
The VCCB awards approximately 85 percent of its budget directly
to victims and/or their service providers. Based on the past
four years, the average amount the board awards annually is
$1,345,338.
MS. PIERSON stated that HB 414 would create a non general fund
(GF) program definition for the VCCB under AS 37.05.146(c).
Revenues could be placed directly into this fund and be matched
at $.60 on every dollar from federal grants. Therefore, the
VCCB could obtain additional funding without any additional cost
to the state. Funding sources for the VCCB include inmate
salaries, restitution payments, permanent fund dividends (PFDs),
and payments made by VCCB claimants under repayment agreements.
However, those funds are currently deposited directly into the
state's GF and any fund balance not expended is returned to the
GF. Again, this bill would allow the VCCB to retain unexpended
funds and obtain matching federal funds at the rate of $.60 per
state dollar.
CHAIR RAMRAS that he is sympathetic with the intent of HB 414
since he has been a victim of property crime himself.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM referred to the VCCB annual report, and
said that she reads that report and supports the work the VCCB
accomplishes. She relayed her support of HB 414, which, she
surmised, would allow the VCCB the ability to roll unexpended
funds forward.
1:17:25 PM
GERAD G. GODFREY, Chair, Violent Crimes Compensation Board
(VCCB), Department of Administration (DOA), concurred with Ms.
Pierson's summation. He noted that when a claimant comes to the
VCCB he/she must sign a subrogation agreement. The VCCB
realizes that some claimants will receive a settlement award,
for example, for an accident involving a driver who was driving
under the influence (DUI). Although eventually the claim will
be settled, it may take considerable time, and, meanwhile, the
victim's bills continue to accrue, oftentimes when the person
cannot work. Mr. Godfrey highlighted that the VCCB awards are
for tangible losses based on a formula, with a maximum of
$40,000. The claimant or his/her attorney will reimburse the
VCCB for the settlement once awarded. He characterized the VCCB
award as a de facto loan, so when the settlements are received,
the funds are directed to the general fund (GF) rather than to
the VCCB. He too noted that the VCCB receives funding from
garnished PFDs. Additionally, the VCCB received funding of
approximately $400,000 during Governor Murkowski's
administration. He explained that if the VCCB can recoup
settlement awards from subrogation agreements and court ordered
restitution or judgments, then the VCCB may become self-
sustaining. He referred to a graph in members' packets that
illustrates the projected funding of the VCCB, and opined that
if HB 414 passes, the VCCB could eventually operate on interest
alone.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the money coming from
inmates' PFDs is deposited into the GF and then appropriated to
the VCCB.
MR. GODFREY answered that the legislature makes the
appropriation but he is not sure of the appropriation process.
However, he noted, the largest percentage of the PFD is
appropriated to the Department of Corrections (DOC), which he
surmised is appropriate since the DOC houses the inmates.
MS. PIERSON advised that garnished PFDs are first deposited into
the GF and are then allocated to the VCCB.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after first determining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 414.
1:25:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HB 414 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 414 was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 355 - DISCLOSURE OF CONTRIBUTIONS: INITIATIVES
1:26:20 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 355, "An Act requiring the disclosure of the
identity of certain persons, groups, and nongroup entities that
expend money in support of or in opposition to ballot
initiatives and the aggregate amounts of significant
contributions or expenditures made by those persons, groups, and
nongroup entities."
1:26:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KYLE JOHANSEN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that he had introduced HB 355 in order to begin
discussions about the initiative process and the need for
openness and transparency of funding during that process. He
offered his concern that funding is obscured, and remarked upon
the importance of requiring disclosure of an individual or a
group that funds ballot initiatives, regardless of whether the
group supports or opposes the ballot initiative. Legislators
and potential legislators currently must disclose income,
campaign contributions, and investments, to provide the public a
basis for making decisions about the people they elect. This
bill would require disclosure of those who influence ballot
initiatives. He explained that his intent is to require full
disclosure of groups such that if a group in Wyoming is funding
a ballot initiative, the public has a right to know it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN opined that when a question is on the
ballot, the issue becomes a public-relations battle with little
discussion about the proposed change and is instead more about
slogans. He acknowledged that HB 355 might have to be altered
and that some issues may still need to be addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked who is currently allowed to
contribute funds to organizations that sponsor ballot
initiatives.
1:33:40 PM
SONIA CHRISTENSEN, Staff to Representative Kyle Johansen, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Johansen,
sponsor, stated that there are no restrictions with regard to
who can contribute to ballot initiatives.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN offered that he did not believe that any
limit is imposed on the amount that can be contributed to
support ballot initiatives.
CHAIR RAMRAS described his experience in collecting signatures
for a ballot initiative, and acknowledged that it is a difficult
task. He mentioned two distinct aspects to ballot initiatives
as being collecting signatures and advocating for or against the
issue to be placed on the ballot. He relayed his own
experiences with collecting signatures, and noted that although
he had initially been opposed to the legislation allowing a
sponsor of a ballot initiative to pay someone to collect
signatures, [he no longer is]. Additionally, he found some
people would not support his initiative because they had
concerns about retribution.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN opined that if someone wants to donate
money for a ballot initiative, he/she should not fear
retribution. However, the contributor should be required to
disclose that donation. He said that although he supports the
initiative process, his main concern and the reason for
introducing HB 355 is that ballot initiatives have become a
multimillion-dollar industry and so it is difficult for the
public to discern who is funding the ballot initiative. He
offered his understanding that some businesses focus on ballot
initiatives for profit. He stressed that citizens have a right
to know the source of funding for ballot initiatives.
CHAIR RAMRAS stated said that he shares Representative
Johansen's concern about outside interests "hijacking" ballot
initiatives.
1:45:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS recalled the ballot initiative Chair
Ramras collected signatures for all summer long. He pointed out
that someone could have spent millions to oppose the ballot
initiative and that it would be difficult to find out who paid
for the campaign opposing the initiative.
CHAIR RAMRAS offered his understanding that HB 355 would not
affect that aspect of ballot initiatives. However, he said his
exclusive concern is to protect the ability of individuals to
place something on the ballot. He said that he supports full
disclosure for donations by individuals and groups once the
initiative is on the ballot.
MS. CHRISTENSEN clarified that HB 355 would apply to any
committee that spends or incurs $500 in expenditures and would
require the group to file with the Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC).
CHAIR RAMRAS recalled that he helped collect 46,000 signatures
for the ballot initiative to limit the legislative session to 90
days, and that a group opposed to the initiative spent $1
million to oppose it. He asked whether a group opposing an
initiative is currently required to report and disclose its
source of funds on a ballot initiative.
MS. CHRISTENSEN answered that currently the source of the
funding would need to be disclosed.
CHAIR RAMRAS surmised that HB 355 is limited to funding spent to
collect signatures.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN stated that his intention, regardless of
whether the legislation actually does so, is to require
financial disclosure for those who either collect signatures or
run a campaign to support or oppose a ballot initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked what specifically would be changed
by HB 355.
MS. CHRISTENSEN indicated that a sectional analysis is in
members' packets provide that information.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS posed a scenario in which a group forms,
but its contributors are not known to the public.
CHAIR RAMRAS agreed. He reiterated his earlier concern for
adverse impacts on private citizens who seek to place an
initiative on the ballot.
1:53:30 PM
CHRISTINA ELLINGSON, Acting Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), Department of Administration (DOA), noted
that the APOC just addressed this reporting question at its
meeting in February 2008. She offered that under Section 4 of
HB 355, the reporting statute would be changed by deleting "an
initiative". She explained that people must gather signatures
to get an initiative, referendum, or a recall on the ballot, and
that currently, AS 15.13.110(e) identifies when reports are
required, such that each group is required to report
contributions and expenditures 30 days after filing with the
lieutenant governor and 10 days after the end of each calendar
quarter. However, under HB 355, the reports would be required
the 15th day of each month before the election and two weeks
prior to the election. She stated that the rest of bill
pertains to Division of Elections matters. Currently, once the
first 100 signatures are obtained by a "loosely formed" group,
then that group must file with the APOC.
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed his understanding that HB 355 attempts to
have a "loosely formed" group provide fuller disclosure to the
public.
MS. ELLINGSON agreed. However, she opined that this bill does
more [than that]. She clarified that the first filing is
generally done by the sponsor of the initiative. She
characterized the initiatives' sponsors as often being a
"handful of people" who will register as a group. She further
noted that sometimes the group is represented by attorneys who
are hired to assist them.
1:59:26 PM
CHIP THOMA stated that he supports HB 355, and that he has been
involved in three local initiatives and two statewide
initiatives, and that in each instance the opposition to the
initiatives was overwhelming and the funding sources were not
documented. He said that he is not a lobbyist nor is he
compensated in any way for his presence before the committee.
He offered that he joined the cruise ship initiative since he
thought it was a good cause. He relayed that Joe Geldhof, a
Juneau attorney, authorized him to report to the committee that
the cruise ship initiative received one outside contribution in
the amount of $10,000 for advertising purposes. An additional
$30,000 was raised to obtain signatures, which were collected by
volunteers or paid signature gatherers. He noted that the
cruise ship initiative had strong local support, especially from
the Alaska Native Sisterhood (ANS), which was concerned that
cruise ships would affect their subsistence foods. He pointed
out that the opposition spent over $2 million to fight the
initiative, though he did not know who furnished the funding for
over 27 mailers and the television advertising campaign to
combat this initiative. However, he stated that he later
learned that the Northwest Cruise Ship Association based in
Vancouver, Canada, provided the funding through PacWest, a major
group form Miami, Florida. He said that his group prevailed in
its efforts, although he opined that the group could have won by
much greater margin if the funding source had been known and
publicized.
MR. THOMA suggested that the bill should also apply to statewide
municipal ballot initiatives, that registered lobbyists should
be prohibited from donating to any ballot initiative campaign,
and that proposed AS 15.45.780 contain a "top ten" contributor
list for all ballot initiative advertising such that anyone
contributing over $500 or $1,000 to a ballot initiative campaign
should be listed. He recalled one local initiative to ban
fluoride in drinking water. Supposedly the issue was locally
funded; however, the American Dental Society primarily funded an
opposition campaign. Additionally, he offered that Alaska
doesn't have a professional signature gathering group. He
concluded with his support for HB 355.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred to the reporting requirements of
the bill, and asked Mr. Thoma whether he thought the
requirements were reasonable and if he thought that the proposed
requirements would affect how people would conduct ballot
initiative advertisement campaigns.
MR. THOMA answered that advertising decisions generally must be
made early on, so he does not think that the changes to the
reporting requirement would affect advertising. However, he
stressed that a cumulative donor list should be filed with any
advertising for ballot initiatives.
2:08:49 PM
STEVE CLEARY, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest
Research Group (AkPIRG), after relaying that AkPIRG has been
operating in Alaska since 1974, has approximately 1,600 members,
and that its mission is to protect consumers and advocate for
open and honest government in Alaska, stated that AkPIRG
supports HB 355, which he characterized as "a great step for
Alaska." He too remarked that ballot initiatives are an
important part of the lawmaking process in Alaska. He said that
AkPIRG believes in full disclosure, which he characterized as
essential for open government, and that the public has a right
to know who is funding a ballot initiative. The current system
allows and rewards secrecy by allowing a group to pay signature
gatherers and put forth an initiative without having to disclose
the source of funding for its ballot initiative campaign. He
stated that AkPIRG believes that Alaskans should know the
funding source in the signature gathering phase and not just
after an initiative has been placed on the ballot. He
acknowledged that once something is on the ballot, the issue
achieves some legitimacy. Therefore, it is critical that
Alaskans know, prior to that phase, the sources of the funding
for the signature gathering.
MR. CLEARY said that the AkPIRG is currently working on the
Clean Elections Ballot initiative. Alaskans for Clean Elections
chose to disclose its contributions during the signature
gathering phase even though it is not currently required to do
so. In contrast to that, the "anti-corruption" initiative would
negate the Clean Elections initiative, he opined. That group is
not required to list its contributors or expenses during the
signature gathering phase. He said that the AkPIRG believes
that the bulk of the "anti-corruption" initiative funding is
coming from Mr. Howard Rich, a New York business tycoon who has
funded ballot measures all across the United States. Similar
measures have been thrown off the ballot in Montana, he offered,
such as one sponsored by a group named "Montanans in Action"
even though its funding sources originated in New York.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked Mr. Cleary if he has had experience
with subgroups donating funding to the main group that organizes
to support or oppose an initiative, such that it is difficult to
ascertain the original source of funding for the ballot
initiative, regardless of whether it is in the signature
gathering phase or the actual ballot initiative campaign.
MR. CLEARY stated that he has not experienced such, but would
research that issue further.
2:14:02 PM
MARGARET PATON-WALSH, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and
State Affairs Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of
Law (DOL), stated that the DOL has one potential problem with
HB 355. She referred to Section 6 of proposed AS 15.45.780.
She stated that a potential First Amendment concern was raised
by a U.S. Supreme Court decision, McIntyre v. the Ohio Elections
Commission, 514 U.S. 335(1995). In that case, Mrs. McIntyre
handed out flyers at a school board meeting in opposition to a
bond proposal. The requirement that political advertising would
include the name of the committee person, group, or nongroup
entity that was behind it, would run afoul of First Amendment
protections for anonymous speech that were outlined in McIntyre,
she opined. In that case, the court addressed Ohio's interest
regarding public information, which is clearly what is
motivating HB 355, she surmised. The court found the state's
interest insufficient to justify trumping a person's right to
anonymous speech. Thus, she expressed concern about the
constitutionality of proposed Section 6, absent some attempt to
define political advertising. The current election statutes
defines "communication" in AS 15.13, a narrower definition that
would exclude flyers that the U.S. Supreme Court found were
protected in McIntyre, she opined.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether the contribution amount
matters enough to impose a $500 limit, and whether a threshold
was indicated in McIntyre.
MS. PATON-WALSH answered that the funding issue is not very
clear in McIntyre. She offered that the court makes some
reference to the small scale of Mrs. McIntyre's activities.
However, the court did not make a clear distinction, nor is it
the central part of the analysis of the issue. She opined that
it is possible that some argument could be made based on the
threshold amount. She said she could not predict, but her sense
is that given the cost of reproducing flyers at Kinkos, it could
be that $500 would be too low a threshold to cover activities
such as those engaged in by Mrs. McIntyre. Even if the
threshold were raised, it is not clear if that would be a
compelling basis for the distinction, she surmised.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether a person who contributes
$50 to a political campaign could assert the right to anonymity.
Currently, he noted, that person is required to furnish name and
address along with his/her contribution.
MS. PATON-WALSH answered that a person could not assert the
right to anonymity, which is more closely connected to political
speech; so the financial contribution, although it could be
characterized as a political statement, is in some ways
distinguished by the U.S. Supreme Court as a political "flyer."
If a person writes out his/her support or opposition to an
initiative and posts it in various places around a city, that
"posting" is considered a direct expression of the person's
political speech.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL acknowledged that the court has already
determined that people have a right to know who made the
contribution, for example, when someone makes a contribution of
$500 or more.
2:20:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS relayed that he must disclose the source
of advertising expenditures by listing "paid for by" on the
advertisement. He asked why anonymity on expenditures for a
group in ballot initiative situations is allowed.
MS. PATON-WALSH answered the court hasn't actually addressed
that issue of "paid for by" a particular candidate. The court
has only made a distinction between elections for office and
ballot or bond initiatives. She advised that McIntyre addresses
an "issue" election and not an election of an individual, and
that she does not know the extent to which that anonymity
protection would expand if that issue came before the court.
She explained that there were three opinions are expressed in
McIntyre: the majority opinion, concurring opinions, and a
dissent opinion.
MS. PATON-WALSH again offered that one solution to address the
constitutional issues in the bill would be to add a definition
of political advertising that excludes the areas of known
jurisprudence protections by the court and leaves open areas
that have not yet been determined by the court. She opined the
current definition of communication in AS 15.13.090 essentially
provides protection for the types of speech engaged in by Mrs.
McIntyre but not for many other things.
2:23:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked why there is anonymity for initiatives
but not for an individual's campaign, particularly given that
most elected officials are elected due to their stance on
issues. He asked whether other states have passed similar
legislation and, if so, whether constitutional challenges have
been raised with respect to anonymity.
MS. PATON-WALSH answered that McIntyre is essentially the
preeminent case on this issue. The state of Ohio had prohibited
anonymous leaflet advertising, she said, and so Mrs. McIntyre
was fined under that statute, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
it unconstitutional. She opined that the "paid for by" language
requirement is a standard provision found in many other states
and at the federal level, and that a huge gray area exists
between what Mrs. McIntyre did and the "paid for by" issue.
Again, McIntyre provides the only clues as to what may happen
with regard to anonymous speech. She said that she is not able
to say with certainty whether something will be constitutional
since so little information exists.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said that he struggles to understand why a
contribution to a political campaign cannot be anonymous, yet a
contribution to an initiative can be.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN offered that he shares that same
concern.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES referred to page 2, lines 20-31, of
proposed Section 5, and asked about the reporting requirements
for a group that raises money for several purposes and
contributes more than $500 per year. Would the organization or
the individuals or members that contributed to the organization
be required to be disclosed as contributors?
MS. ELLINGSON answered that ballot issues just report the
funding source. She posed a scenario such that if a group
decided to support an initiative, it would remit the funds from
its own funds. Under current disclosure law a "group" is
triggered when it solicits money from its members; otherwise an
entity could simply make a donation that is derived from its
general membership fees.
2:31:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES surmised, then, that if a group made a
donation from its general membership funds, the only reporting
required would be for the single donation from it for the
purpose of a ballot initiative. She asked whether the group
would be required to report if it specifically solicited funds
for a ballot initiative.
MS. ELLINGSON answered that the group would be required to
report and would have to name itself.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES referred to proposed AS 15.45.760, which
requires that the committee name must include the ballot title
and the word "for" or the word "against". She inquired as to
whether, in actual practice, multiple groups would have the same
name.
MS. ELLINGSON answered no, and explained an outside entity had
tried to tie up every conceivable variation of a name so that
others could not use it. She noted that most groups devise
their own name.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES stated that she did not find a definition
of "initiative committee" in HB 355.
MS. ELLINGSON answered that initiatives fall under the
definition of "group" in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES referred to proposed AS 15.45.760, and
opined that several groups could have similar names. She asked
whether multiple groups are formed or if it is usually just one
group "for" and one group "against" an initiative.
MS. ELLINGSON answered that sometimes multiple groups are
formed. Although proposed AS 15.45.760 pertains to the Division
of Elections, some provisions in HB 355 probably should fall
under APOC's campaign disclosure purview, she suggested.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES expressed concern that if more than one
group is formed, they could be limited with regard to what name
they get to choose.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that the titles of the groups
would not lend itself to "a clean debate."
2:36:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked the sponsor to also consider what
aspects of the bill APOC should administer.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked MS. Ellingson to elaborate on the genesis of
the requirement for disclosure for campaign contributions but
not for initiatives.
MS. ELLINGSON said that that APOC decision arose out of several
court cases. Up until 1997, statutes stated that disclosure
applied to activities that are intended to influence the outcome
of the election. Thus, an argument could be made that without a
question on the ballot, there isn't an election. The commission
held discussions on whether it is constitutional to require
disclosure since a group may not gather enough signatures to
place the initiative on the ballot and hold an election.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked why disclosure is required even if the
initiative never makes it to the ballot, particularly given that
many initiatives fail.
MS. ELLINGSON agreed. She offered that some groups voluntarily
disclose their signature-gathering funds.
CHAIR RAMRAS surmised that once an organization advertises that
it is collecting signatures, the group would need to disclose.
MS. ELLINGSON clarified that if a group is collecting signatures
and requests people to vote for or against the initiative in the
event that it is on the ballot, the group must report and
disclose the contributors.
MS. ELLINGSON, in response to a question, answered that a group
that is only in the signature-gathering stage would not be
required to disclose since an election might not ultimately be
held. She pointed out that candidates and groups have different
standards for reporting requirements, and opined that candidates
are held to a higher standard. Furthermore, if a candidate ran
for office and later withdrew, he/she would still be required to
report his/her expenditures and distribution of funds.
CHAIR RAMRAS opined that a person who runs for office is fully
engaged in running for office. If that person withdraws from
the race, he/she is out of the race. In the case of a ballot
initiative, until a person submits the signatures and requests
certification, the ballot initiative will not be on the ballot,
and once those signatures are submitted, the person then loses
custody of the ballot initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN offered his concern that listing names of
contributors would have the effect of creating a database of
people who support or oppose an initiative. He offered an
example of groups such as Planned Parenthood and Alaska Right to
Life, whose goals are diametrically opposed to one another.
2:44:47 PM
MS. ELLINGSON surmised that groups could contribute $1,000 to an
initiative group, and that group could form a separate arm to
solicit funds for specific ballot issues. She offered that
currently, about four groups have formed whose specific purpose
is for a ballot initiative and the groups' name reflects its
purpose. In response to [comments], she agreed that the groups
could contribute to candidates or a ballot initiative, but that
the list of contributors is already on record. Thus, no new
list of contributors would be created, because such groups
already have a list of their contributors on file.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS argued that an organization could form
another arm and that arm could contribute to candidates and the
public will still not know the source of the contributions.
MS. ELLINGSON answered that the public can simply review the
reporting by the secondary group. She advised that ballot
initiatives "enjoy the ability of being able to collect as much
money as they want from any source that they want."
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS stressed that the point of HB 353 is to
identify any money that is collected that is intended to
influence public policy in Alaska regardless of whether or not
an initiative is successfully placed on the ballot. The public
should know the source of the funds, he opined. He posed a
scenario in which an organization contributes $1 million to a
ballot measure, and opined that if the original source of the $1
million is unknown, then the goal of the bill will not have been
met. He said, "The goal is to have a transparent process so we
know who is trying to influence public policy in the State of
Alaska, whether it is the Sierra Club [or] ExxonMobil
Corporation ...."
MS. ELLINGSON answered that disclosure is required at the time
the person makes a contribution to the organization to inform
the public about an issue. For example, several entities that
favor one side of an issue but which may not be located in
Alaska can contribute large sums of money, though the
contributions must all be disclosed as being to the group they
contribute to or must be listed as an independent expenditure.
Thus, the public can identify whether the source is from a large
company or an individual contributor. She recalled one ballot
initiative that addressed same-sex marriages. One of the major
contributors was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints, widely known as the LDS Church or the Mormon Church from
Utah; although it reported its contributions of $150,000 to one
of the groups, it was not required to reveal who made the
individual contributions to the church.
2:51:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that the
McIntyre decision provides for the right of anonymous free
speech in political situations in certain cases. He asked
whether, in the event that the legislature cannot control the
right of a group to disclose contributions, the state would have
the right to require that the group disclose that it had refused
to reveal its financial sources in election pamphlet material.
MS. PATON-WALSH offered to research that issue further and
respond in writing. She offered a distinction that the
protection for anonymous speech pertains to a published
statement of a political position. She posed a scenario in
which a person who writes an advertisement in the form of a
flyer against a proposition does not need to sign the material.
However, if the person spends money to advertise, he/she must
disclose the funding.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that that would pertain to the
language in proposed AS 15.13.780.
MS. PATON-WALSH agreed, and offered that her concern is solely
confined to proposed AS 15.13.780 regarding the issue of
anonymity of speech.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that a remedy to the
constitutional concern could be to add the phrase, "or the fact
that the author of the advertising refused to reveal the
source."
MS. PATON-WALSH said she would research that issue further.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether APOC supports the changes proposed in
HB 355 with respect to the signature-gathering portion of the
bill.
2:57:43 PM
MS. ELLINGSON referred to proposed AS 15.13.110(e), and noted
that it states that the first report will be within 30 days
after the first filing with the lieutenant governor and
quarterly thereafter; proposed AS 15.13.110(e) read:
A group formed to sponsor an initiative, a referendum
or a recall shall report 30 days after its first
filing with the lieutenant governor. Thereafter, each
group shall report within 10 days after the end of
each calendar quarter on the contributions received
and expenditures made during the preceding calendar
quarter until reports are due under (a) of this
section.
MS. ELLINGSON explained that [APOC] staff has never required
disclosure during signature gathering unless a group is
advocating for or against a ballot measure.
CHAIR RAMRAS recalled his experience in collecting signatures
and noted that since his group was not advocating for a
position, his report was zero.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked whether HB 355 is intended to ban
groups from contributing and only allow individuals to make
contributions, with no limit on amounts, yet requiring full
disclosure. He also asked whether the bill's current language
would pass constitutional muster.
CHAIR RAMRAS pointed out that the Fairbanks North Star Borough
(FNSB) raised $150,000 for a ballot initiative to raise property
tax exemptions. He asked whether such an initiative would be
affected by passage of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS opined that the FNSB couldn't contribute
at all on statewide initiatives since funding would be solely by
individuals.
CHAIR RAMRAS surmised that if contributions were limited to
individuals, then the FNSB would be precluded from altering
property tax exemptions.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS agreed.
MS. PATON-WALSH advised that there is no First Amendment concern
raised by the hypothetical example because an individual is not
allowed to make an anonymous contribution. She offered to
research that issue further for the committee.
3:03:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Paton-Walsh to also consider
Article 11 of the Alaska State Constitution and the
constitutional decisions rendered by the Alaska Supreme Court in
conjunction with the fundamental right of association. He
opined that severe problems would result if the legislature were
to ban the right of association.
MS. PATON-WALSH offered to research that issue further. She
offered her understanding that Representative Samuels was not
suggesting that groups be prevented from forming in support of
or in opposition to ballot initiatives. However, another
organization could not contribute to a ballot initiative
committee in order to conceal the original source of its
funding.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that the group would simply
offer that its reason to band together pertained to the right to
associate and not to concealing its contributors. He said he is
interested in who would administer the various parts of the
bill, and opined that the APOC is well suited to administer much
of the bill. He then referred to proposed AS 15.45.780, and
asked whether McIntyre applies and, if so, if a group chooses to
be anonymous, whether that fact shall be disclosed in all
advertising.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES referred to language on page 3, lines 9-
10, regarding naming the initiative committees.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether the findings and intent
provision is necessary. He referred to proposed AS
15.13.110(g), and asked what other reporting requirements are
needed to determine the entire schedule.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN offered his strong support for the concept
of the bill. He stated that he would like to see [the
provisions of statutes pertaining to] contributions for
initiatives be aligned with those for candidates. He
highlighted that the process should be as transparent as
possible. Furthermore, if corporations cannot contribute to an
individual's campaign, then why should corporations be allowed
to contribute to ballot initiatives.
3:09:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS surmised that generally the U.S. Supreme
Court has found it is far different to contribute to individuals
than it is to contribute to ideas.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that HB 355 raises important
constitutional issues that need to be considered.
[HB 355 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|