Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120
04/11/2010 09:00 AM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB284 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 284 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 11, 2010
9:13 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 284(FIN)
"An Act relating to state election campaigns, the duties of the
Alaska Public Offices Commission, the reporting and disclosure
of expenditures and independent expenditures, the filing of
reports, and the identification of certain communications in
state election campaigns; prohibiting expenditures and
contributions by foreign nationals in state elections; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 284
SHORT TITLE: CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
02/19/10 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/10 (S) STA, JUD
03/02/10 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/02/10 (S) Moved SB 284 Out of Committee
03/02/10 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/02/10 (S) STA RPT 5DP
03/02/10 (S) DP: MENARD, FRENCH, MEYER, PASKVAN,
KOOKESH
03/02/10 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
03/08/10 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/08/10 (S) Heard & Held
03/08/10 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/12/10 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/12/10 (S) Heard & Held
03/12/10 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/15/10 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/15/10 (S) Heard & Held
03/15/10 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/17/10 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/17/10 (S) Moved CSSB 284(JUD) Out of Committee
03/17/10 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/18/10 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP 1AM NEW TITLE
03/18/10 (S) DP: FRENCH, WIELECHOWSKI, MCGUIRE
03/18/10 (S) AM: COGHILL
03/23/10 (S) FIN AT 1:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/23/10 (S) Heard & Held
03/23/10 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/29/10 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/29/10 (S) Moved CSSB 284(FIN) Out of Committee
03/29/10 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/29/10 (S) FIN RPT CS 4DP 1NR NEW TITLE
03/29/10 (S) DP: HOFFMAN, STEDMAN, THOMAS, EGAN
03/29/10 (S) NR: HUGGINS
04/01/10 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/01/10 (S) VERSION: CSSB 284(FIN)
04/05/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/05/10 (H) JUD, FIN
04/07/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/07/10 (H) Heard & Held
04/07/10 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/09/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/09/10 (H) Heard & Held
04/09/10 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/10/10 (H) JUD AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 120
04/10/10 (H) Heard & Held
04/10/10 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/11/10 (H) JUD AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN PTACIN, 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
proposed amendments to SB 284.
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as chair of the Senate Judiciary
Standing Committee, sponsor of SB 284.
ACTION NARRATIVE
9:13:08 AM
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting, which had been recessed on April 10, 2010, back to
order at 9:13 a.m. Representatives Ramras, Lynn, Gruenberg,
Holmes, Dahlstrom, Herron, and Gatto were present at the call to
order.
SB 284 - CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES
9:13:23 AM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the only order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 284(FIN), "An Act relating to state
election campaigns, the duties of the Alaska Public Offices
Commission, the reporting and disclosure of expenditures and
independent expenditures, the filing of reports, and the
identification of certain communications in state election
campaigns; prohibiting expenditures and contributions by foreign
nationals in state elections; and providing for an effective
date." [Before the committee was CSSB 284(FIN), as amended on
4/10/10.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to action that occurred on
4/10/10, announced that after further consideration, he would
have preferred to have voted "no" on the amendment to
Amendment 3, and to have voted "yes" on Amendment 3; "I think
'three' is the appropriate number [to have in proposed AS
15.13.090(a)(2)(C)]".
9:15:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN made a motion to adopt Amendment 5, labeled
26-LS1448\P.10, Bullard, 4/5/10, and indicated that he would
also be seeking to amend Amendment 5; Amendment 5 read:
Page 8, lines 14 - 16:
Delete "10 days after an independent expenditure
has been made. However, an independent expenditure
that exceeds $250 and that is made within nine days of
an election shall be reported to the commission not
later than"
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN indicated that Amendment 5 - which would
alter proposed AS 15.13.110(g) - addresses the deadline by which
an independent expenditure report is due, changing it from
either 10 days or 24 hours - depending on the amount and when it
was expended - to just 24 hours after the expenditure was made;
and that his amendment to Amendment 5 would be to change that
deadline to 48 hours after the expenditure was made.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that there were no objections,
[although no motion had been made] announced that Amendment 5
was so amended.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN indicated that Amendment 5, as amended,
would provide for better disclosure to occur in a more timely
manner.
9:17:35 AM
CHAIR RAMRAS surmised that Amendment 5, as amended, would
pertain to all forms of [political] advertizing including that
which has been paid for by small groups who, research indicates,
generally don't use television much as a medium for their
advertisements.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he, too, assumes that it would pertain
to all forms, but opined that it shouldn't make any difference
whether an advertisement is paid for by a small group or by a
large group.
CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that it makes a difference to him, and
thus he opposes Amendment 5, as amended, as being too burdensome
on small groups and groups that are advertizing for the first
time and therefore aren't familiar with Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC) rules and reporting requirements, opining that
large groups are more capable of understanding such rules and
requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN disagreed, pointing out that a legislator
such as himself is essentially [a small group of one] and yet
nonetheless still has an obligation to become familiar with
those rules and reporting requirements regardless of whether it
is his/her first time running for office.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked what the penalty would be for violating
[proposed AS 15.13.110(g)].
9:20:19 AM
JOHN PTACIN, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State Affairs
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL),
explained that there would be a fine of $50 a day for every day
the expenditure report was late, and the violator would have to
work with the APOC to rectify the situation. In response to
comments and a question, he pointed out that these statutes -
both existing and proposed - pertain to a complaint-driven
system, so someone would have to notice and complain that a
group was out of compliance with the APOC's reporting
requirements, and then the APOC would investigate.
9:23:28 AM
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH, Alaska State Legislature, as chair of the
Senate Judiciary Standing Committee, sponsor of SB 284, said he
appreciates the motive behind Amendment 5, as amended, but feels
that the current language of proposed AS 15.13.110(g) offers a
fair approach while still allowing voters to obtain up-to-date
information right up until just prior to the election.
MR. PTACIN, in response to a question, indicated that the APOC
would be providing the reporting forms.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that the
proposed reporting requirements would be the same for both
individual candidates and groups.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 5, as amended.
CHAIR RAMRAS objected to the motion.
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Lynn voted in favor
of Amendment 5, as amended. Representatives Gruenberg, Holmes,
Dahlstrom, Herron, Gatto, and Ramras voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 5, as amended, failed by a vote of 1-6.
9:26:09 AM
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 6, labeled 26-
LS1448\P.20, Bullard, 4/10/10, which read:
Page 3, line 18:
Delete "to the person that exceed $100 in the
aggregate in a year"
Page 3, line 21, following "name":
Insert "and address of the contributor and, for
contributions in excess of $50 in the aggregate during
a calendar year, the name"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.
CHAIR RAMRAS explained that Amendment 6 would decrease - from
$100 to $50 - the yearly aggregate amount that triggers the
requirement that the principal occupation and employer of the
contributor be disclosed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS, noting that there were no other objections,
announced that Amendment 6 was adopted.
9:27:27 AM
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 7, labeled 26-
LS1448\P.21, Bullard, 4/10/10, which read:
Page 8, following line 11:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(e) Contributors required to be identified under
(a)(2)(C) of this section must be listed in order of
the amount of their contributions. If more than three
of the largest contributors to a person paying for a
communication contribute equal amounts, the person may
select which of the contributors of equal amounts to
identify under (a)(2)(C) of this section. In no case
shall a person be required to identify more than three
contributors under (a)(2)(C) of this section."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
CHAIR RAMRAS explained that Amendment 7 addresses his concern
that the stipulation that the information of no more than three
contributors need be disclosed be statutory rather than merely
regulatory.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 7 was adopted.
9:28:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON made a motion to adopt Amendment 8,
labeled 26-LS1448\P.22, Bullard, 4/10/10, which read:
Page 5, line 9:
Delete "a new section"
Insert "new sections"
Page 6, following line 7:
Insert a new section to read:
"Sec. 15.13.069. Certain expenditures that comply
with charitable gaming provisions permitted.
Notwithstanding another provision of this title, a
charitable gaming permittee that is a qualified
organization under AS 05.15.690 may use the net
proceeds of a raffle or lottery to make expenditures
for the purposes permitted under AS 05.15.150(a)(3)."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON offered his understanding that Amendment 8
would allow a charitable gaming permittee to expend proceeds on
a political action committee (PAC), for example.
MR. PTACIN, in response to a question, confirmed that
Amendment 8 would clarify that issue via statute, thereby
overriding any regulation or advisory opinion to the contrary.
[In response to a question/concern, members and staff observed
that Amendment 8 would insert a new section of statute in AS
15.13 - a new Section .069 - and not just add its proposed new
language to proposed AS 15.13.068.]
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 8 was adopted.
9:32:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES made a motion to adopt Amendment 9, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 8, line 4, following "transmitted":
Delete "solely"
Page 8, lines 4-5, following "audio media:
Insert "and in the communication that includes an
audio component"
Page 8, lines 7-11:
Delete all material
Insert "This communication was paid for by
(person's name), whose top contributors are (the name
of the largest contributors to the person under AS
15.13.090(a)(2)(C))."
CHAIR RAMRAS objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES explained that Amendment 9 would
significantly shorten what must be stated in communications
transmitted via audio or those that have an audio component -
such as television advertisements - and thereby rectify the fact
that currently some of what's required to be stated is
duplicative, with the name of the person paying for the
communication being stated in each of the three currently-
required sentences. Under Amendment 9, proposed AS 15.13.090(d)
would once again also apply to television advertisements, but
only one sentence would be required to be read aloud and it
would include the person's name and his/her top contributors,
but it would no longer have to include the principal officer's
title in situations where the person is other than an individual
or a candidate. She surmised that under Amendment 9, what's
required to be stated more closely mirrors what individual
candidates must state in their communications transmitted via
audio or those that have an audio component.
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed favor with shortening what's required to
be stated during radio advertisements, but, citing the expense
of television advertising, expressed disfavor with having
proposed AS 15.13.090(d) again apply to television
advertisements. He indicated that he would therefore be
offering an amendment to Amendment 9.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:35 a.m. to 9:36 a.m.
9:36:19 AM
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to amend Amendment 9, to delete its
proposed changes to page 8, lines 4, and page 8, lines 4-5;
under the amendment to Amendment 9, though, Amendment 9's
proposed change to page 8, lines 7-11, would remain. He opined
that having to disclose information verbally is far more
appropriate for radio advertisements than it is for television
advertisements.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected to the amendment to Amendment 9.
SENATOR FRENCH indicated that he is amenable to having what must
be read aloud significantly shortened, but feels that the
requirements of proposed AS 15.13.090(d) should apply to all
forms of communication. This would mirror the disclosure
requirements of individual candidates who, regardless of how
well-funded they may or may not be, must have their disclosures
read aloud even in television advertisements. He urged the
committee to keep the disclosure requirements the same for all.
CHAIR RAMRAS, in response to a question, again spoke of the
expense of advertising and the length of time it can take to
read a disclosure statement aloud, noting that television
advertisements cost far more than radio advertisements. He
expressed concern that the bill would be more burdensome on and
more costly to small groups/entities than large ones.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that the amendment to
Amendment 9 would gut Amendment 9, and predicted that its
adoption would result in groups/entities being able to conceal
important information when they use television advertisements.
Regardless of what side of the issue or which candidate that a
group favors, what's at stake for the public is far more
important than the minor cost associated with reading a
disclosure aloud - particularly given that it's the large, well-
funded groups/entities that tend to use television
advertisements - and the information that ought to be disclosed
may well make a difference to the voter. The amendment to
Amendment 9 would allow voters to be misled. Furthermore, there
are people who could benefit from having disclosures read aloud
during television advertisements: the blind - who listen to
television rather than watch it; the visually impaired - who may
not be able to read the written disclosure; and those who listen
to the television while they do other tasks - which is what many
people do whenever the commercials come on. In conclusion, he
offered his hope that Amendment 9 would remain unamended.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that every [political]
television advertisement is essentially going to relay two
things: the first, which he characterized as minor, is the
message itself; and the second, which he characterized as more
important, is who is paying for that message. He opined that
it's important for the information about who is paying for the
message to be clearer than the message itself, adding that he
would therefore be supporting [those who oppose the amendment to
Amendment 9.]
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said it's important for groups/entities to
be held to the same standards as candidates, who must have their
disclosures read aloud even in television advertisements, adding
that she therefore opposes the amendment to Amendment 9.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN expressed opposition to the amendment to
Amendment 9, surmising that it would result in larger
groups/entities being able to avoid proper disclosure.
9:46:14 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Dahlstrom, Herron,
and Ramras voted in favor of the amendment to Amendment 9.
Representatives Holmes, Gatto, Lynn, and Gruenberg voted
against it. Therefore, the amendment to Amendment 9 failed by a
vote of 3-4.
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that he would be maintaining his objection
to Amendment 9.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gatto, Lynn,
Gruenberg, and Holmes voted in favor of Amendment 9.
Representatives Dahlstrom, Herron, and Ramras voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 9 was adopted by a vote of 4-3.
[CSSB 284, as amended on 4/10/10 and 4/11/10, was held over.]
9:48:12 AM
ADJOURNMENT
The House Judiciary Standing Committee recessed at 9:48 a.m. to
a call of the chair. [The meeting never reconvened.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB284 Final Amendment pkg. 4.11.10.pdf |
HJUD 4/11/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 284 |