Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/25/1996 08:00 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
January 25, 1996
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Ed Willis
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present.
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 368
"An Act relating to election campaigns, election campaign
financing, the oversight and regulation of election campaigns by
the Alaska Public Offices Commission, the activities of lobbyists
that relate to election campaigns, and the definitions of offenses
of campaign misconduct; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 317
"An Act relating to election campaigns, election campaign
financing, the oversight and regulation of election campaigns by
the Alaska Public Offices Commission, the activities of lobbyists
that relate to election campaigns, and the definitions of offenses
of campaign misconduct; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 419
"An Act relating to the disposal of firearms and ammunition by the
state or a municipality."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 75
"An Act relating to criminal mischief."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 368
SHORT TITLE: ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
12/29/95 2362 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2362 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2362 (H) STA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/25/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 317
SHORT TITLE: ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) FINKELSTEIN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/21/95 1427 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/21/95 1427 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/08/96 2358 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
01/08/96 2358 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/25/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 419
SHORT TITLE: DISPOSAL OF FIREARMS BY PUBLIC AGENCIES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT, Ogan, Foster, Barnes, Sanders,
Willis, Toohey, Vezey, Kelly
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/12/96 2438 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/12/96 2438 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
01/16/96 2457 (H) COSPONSOR(S): OGAN
01/19/96 2495 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER, BARNES
01/22/96 2512 (H) COSPONSOR(S): SANDERS, WILLIS, TOOHEY
01/24/96 2529 (H) COSPONSOR(S): VEZEY, KELLY
01/25/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 424
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-2435
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 317.
MIKE FRANK, Chair
Campaign Finance Reform Now
2224 Turnagain Parkway
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
Telephone: (907) 248-5078
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on HB 317 and HB 368.
KATHY ASHBY
1835 West 15th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone number not available
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on HB 317 and HB 368.
BONNIE WILLIAMS
1335 Sunnyslope Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 457-2637
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on HB 317 and HB 368.
STEPHEN CONN, Executive Director
Alaska Public Interest Research Group
507 "E" Street, Number 202
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 278-3661
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on HB 317 and HB 368.
MICHELE KECK
4341 McCalister Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Telephone: (907) 258-9653
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on HB 317 and HB 368.
RANDY HARSHMAN
6925 Windsor Place
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Telephone: (907) 243-8072
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on HB 317 and HB 368.
ED EARNHART
1043 West 74th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
Telephone: (907) 349-1160
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on HB 317 and HB 368.
BART WATSON
P.O. Box 20688
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 586-4139
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on HB 317 and HB 368.
SAM SKAGGS
709 Gold Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-6479
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on HB 317 and HB 368.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 432
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 586-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 419.
DUGAN PETTY, Director
Division of General Services
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110210
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0210
Telephone: (907) 465-2250
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on HB 419.
GRETCHEN PENCE, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
Telephone: (907) 465-4322
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on HB 419.
BERNARD GOODNO
P.O. Box 92
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-4000
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on HB 419.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-04, SIDE A
Number 0000
The House State Affairs Committee was called to order by Chair
Jeannette James at 8:05 a.m. Members present at the call to order
were James, Ogan, Ivan, Porter, Robinson and Willis. Member absent
was Representative Green.
HB 368 - ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
HB 317 - ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 368 and HB 317.
CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Finkelstein, sponsor of HB
317, to present his sponsor statement.
Number 0266
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN said HB 368 and HB 317 were
essentially the same as both bills reflected the provisions brought
forth in the initiative. Minor changes, technical changes, and
recommendations were made to the initiative in HB 317. He called
them clean-up and common sense items and were not critical to the
intent of the initiative. The initiative, he said, was a strong
expression by the people of Alaska, and the legislature had an
important role to play. The Constitution of the State of Alaska
required the legislature to review all initiatives unlike other
states, he cited, and gave the length of the session to review the
provisions. Furthermore, if the legislature passed a substantially
similar law, the initiative would not go to the ballot. He cited,
in California, the legislature was completely left out of the
process. He mentioned it was a good opportunity for the initiative
group and the legislature to interact and solve problems.
Representative Finkelstein said he was motivated because he
believed there was a high level of disenchantment among the public.
He stated he was discouraged to see the reception he received as a
politician. The people felt politics was big money and their role
was limited. He said he was amazed how few individuals gave $25
donations and suggested the general reason was they felt it did not
make a difference compared to the $1,000 donations. Representative
Finkelstein stated more citizens would get involved in the
political process if the cost of campaigns were reformed creating
a sense of "us" rather than "them." Legislators were not a special
group of people, he asserted. The backgrounds were as varied as
any group in the state. This, he alleged, made the legislature a
true representation of the citizens. The members were not rich but
of moderate means, he also stated. The public, however, perceived
the legislators differently. He further aired there were many ways
to approach campaign finance reform and suggested a public finance
approach with voluntary spending limits. Under such a system, he
stated, contributions would be matched dollar for dollar with
public funds up to the predetermined limit. He said he would
support that as an alternative to the initiative. However, he
believed, the legislature was not willing to consider that approach
because of public sentiment. The public did not support public
dollars spent on politicians, and furthermore, money could not be
appropriated through the initiative process. He reiterated there
was not a single right or wrong way to approach campaign finance
reform and again stated he supported public financing. The
approaches in HB 317 and HB 368 were not unusual, he alleged. The
bills tightened the limits, lowered the maximums, added new
prohibitions, limited the time periods, increased the penalties,
and allowed for citizen suits. In conclusion, he said, it was a
moderate reform.
Number 0784
CHAIR JAMES said as sponsor of HB 368 campaign finance reform
should not preclude the ordinary citizen from running for office.
She expressed her concern that restricting individuals from
receiving campaign contributions would lower the ability of people
without money to run for office. She agreed the legislature was
the proper avenue to address the initiative, and cited the
committee and public input processes were the best way to include
and ensure greater understanding among the people.
Number 0858
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS questioned if the legislature passed such
a bill, who determined whether the initiative would be
"substantially the same" or "not substantially the same."
Number 0880
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN responded the Lieutenant Governor and
the Attorney General had the power through a statute to determine
what "substantially the same" meant. The bottom line, however, was
the legislature had significant discretion. "Substantially the
same" meant it must be similar, he said, but it did not mean it
must be substantially identical. He further reminded the committee
members the legislature had the power to amend. The Lieutenant
Governor, he stated, would make a decision based on the achievement
of the objects in the initiative. The current initiative was a
strengthening, tightening and limiting approach, therefore, actions
decided as "similar" would have to be equally strengthening,
tightening, and limiting.
Number 0984
REPRESENTATAIVE ROBINSON mentioned Representative Finkelstein's
approach of public funds did not match the criteria in the
initiative.
Number 1000
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN responded nothing was absolute. If the
initiative sponsors agreed it achieved the objectives there was not
an issue.
Number 1030
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN said there was a perception the campaign
process was heavily influenced by money. He further stated he was
concerned people with money would buy their own influence to
achieve office.
Number 1072
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said that was a common concern. He
announced he pushed for more prohibitive approaches in the
initiative. He cited a $100 maximum contribution was adopted
through an initiative by four states last election. He cited
Oregon adopted indistrict contributions contrary to the initiative
which adopted instate contributions. The state of California was
addressing both issues right now. He alleged, in that context,
this initiative was moderate as $500 could be raised off anybody in
Alaska and additional money from the same people who gave to a
group. He further cited $5,000 could be raised off of a political
party which was money given from individuals to a group.
Therefore, the initiative would not decrease the cost of a
campaign. He stated, the average cost of a campaign was $50,000 to
$60,000 and asserted the cost would be reduced by only 30 to 40
percent. In conclusion, he reiterated, the initiative was not a
radical change.
Number 1200
REPRESENTATAIVE OGAN asked, if the cost of a campaign mentioned by
Representative Finkelstein, depended on if the race was for the
house or the senate.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the cost depended on if it was a
uncontested or contested race. Uncontested races brought the
average down, he said. He stated urban races were the most
expensive at $60,000 to $80,000 due to competition. He cited
Representative Green's race was at the low end and Representative
Robinson's race was at the high end at around $80,000.
Number 1255
CHAIR JAMES said her race was in the $30,000 range last year. She
stated it was hard for her to determine how she could raise more
money based on the prohibitions in the initiative, but she
asserted, she was willing to work for it. In conclusion, she said
she received mostly small contributions from her supporters.
Number 1281
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the record holder in Alaska for a
candidate winning against an incumbent and spending the least
amount of money was Representative Ogan.
Number 1305
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said thank you very much and for the record the
race cost $5,000.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said there were some exceptions that
proved the rule.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded his race restored his faith in the
democratic system because it proved the average person could get
elected and not just rich individuals.
Number 1325
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN apologized for arriving late and stated he
was concerned this bill was biased in favor of the incumbent to
raise money due to familiarity.
Number 1417
CHAIR JAMES further stated one challenge that affected this bill
was the urban versus rural issue. She cited Senator Georgianna
Lincoln's campaign territory included 92 villages and required a
lot of travel time and money. She expressed limited contributions
would adversely affect a candidate's ability to travel effectively
in a large region.
Number 1445
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN said he was also concerned about the cost
of urban versus rural campaigns. It was also very expensive in the
urban areas, he stated, due to the large territory covered. He
cited where television costs were expensive in urban races, travel
costs were expensive in rural races. He recognized the purpose and
intent of HB 368 and HB 317, but was afraid the restrictions would
inhibit new candidates in rural areas. He also said the reporting
requirements from the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) for
the rural areas were horrendous.
Number 1535
CHAIR JAMES asked what percentage of the population contributed to
campaigns in Alaska. She alleged, the bigger the population the
larger the contributions.
Number 1560
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said there was a high ratio of campaign
contributions in Alaska compared to other northwestern states. He
said the campaign spending level for a seat that paid only $24,000
and represented 5,000 to 12,000 voters was high. In San Francisco,
he cited, the above example would hardly make a political
neighborhood. Representative Finkelstein further said campaigns in
Alaska compared to other states were unbelievably expensive. He
further stated the committee was responsible for balancing the
urban versus rural, and incumbency versus non-incumbency issues
discussed earlier. He agreed with the premise of maintaining a
level so that a candidate could travel within their district. The
urban races were responsible for challenging the average cost of a
campaign, he alleged. He further said, the current system favored
the incumbent and joked that prior to 1994 the chance of dying in
office was greater than the chance of losing. He said, it took an
unusual circumstance for an incumbent to lose. However, the
provisions now favored the challenger. He cited reducing the
maximum contributions, the money from lobbyists, the money raising
period, and eliminating carry over of campaign surplus all favored
the challenger. In conclusion, he asserted, this initiative would
level the playing field between the incumbent and the challenger.
Number 1828
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON expressed her concern the system favored
individuals with money. She said the only way to eliminate
contributions from the candidate was through a constitutional
amendment.
Number 1855
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN responded a public finance and voluntary
limit statute would solve the problem. As a result, a campaign
would cost the same for everyone. However, he reiterated, it was
a hard concept to pass through the legislature because to the
constituents it sounded like public money was being spent on
politicians.
Number 1899
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the public financing system would
be based on the primary selection process.
Number 1905
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied at the federal level it was
operated at the primary. He said, it was not hard to construct a
workable formula. He alleged the amount of money involved was
small. He said, it would never come close to a fraction of 1
percent of the Alaska state budget. In conclusion, Representative
Finkelstein asserted public financing did not present a mechanical
problem, but rather a conceptual problem among the constituents and
the legislators.
Number 1935
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER stated there was federal case law that
did not preclude contributions from the candidate and, therefore,
could not be prohibited. He further asked if a constitutional test
had been done on indistrict limits.
Number 1969
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN responded Mike Frank, Chair, Campaign
Finance Reform Now, was better able to answer that question. He
stated, however, existing statutes were tested in Alaska. In
Oregon, he cited, indistrict limits was challenged by the voters
and preliminarily founded unconstitutional. In conclusion, he
said, the constitutionality concept had not yet been resolved.
Number 2008
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON questioned if contribution limits from the
candidates at a community level had been tested and considered.
Number 2028
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said if a limit was established at a
district level it was possible to expand it to a community level.
He further said, an indistrict limit would unbalance the system and
allow rich individuals to dominate the elections, but stated he
supported indistrict limits nonetheless. He cited he had a net
loss in his district because most of his supporters did not have a
lot of money. He asserted, indistrict limits would give an
advantage to individuals with money. Representative Finkelstein
also stated there was the possibility individuals would start using
a lot of their own money to get to the legislature. He commented
it was an issue at the gubernatorial and presidential levels. At
the local level, however, candidates did not spend too much of
their own money.
Number 2121
CHAIR JAMES said Alaska and the legislature were intricately
connected due to the small population. She cited a situation in
Valdez, for example, created a statewide reaction. Therefore, some
people would feel disenfranchised, if they were not able to support
the candidate in their best interest. She further stated, the
perception people were bought into office by special interest was
backwards. Chair James stated she believed individuals contributed
to candidates who supported their interests, and did not believe
individuals contributed to candidates to make them support an
interest.
CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Mike Frank.
Number 2203
MIKE FRANK, Chair, Campaign Finance Reform Now, said campaign
finance reform had been in the public eye for many years. It was
an issue debated in Congress and supported by non-partisan public
interest groups such as, United We Stand. There were on going
efforts in 37 states, he said, to reform state campaign finance
laws. In the 1980's there were efforts to reform campaign finance
laws in Alaska. He cited Representataive Finkelstein's, Governor
Cooper's, and Representataive Brown's efforts. He said he got
involved in the issue because of the anti-government feeling. Mr.
Frank further commented elected officials should be the "village
elders" of the government. They should be honored, respected, and
trusted. Furthermore, the reason they were not treated as such was
directly related to how a campaign was financed. He stated the
effort started in 1993 with general research on the issue. There
was an enthusiastic response from supporters and in 1994 an
initiative petition was proposed. The petition was refiled in 1995
with some changes based on the recommendation of APOC and the
volunteers started collecting signatures. He cited 95 out of 100
people stopped, listened and signed the petition. Due to the
response the goal of 25,000 signatures was raised to 28,000. The
volunteers, however, collected approximately 31,500 signatures. In
1995 the Lieutenant Governor certified the signatures for the
November 1996 ballot. The initiative, he said, was an effort to
refocus the electoral system back to the ordinary Alaskan voter and
increase the public faith. The initiative eliminated large
contributions of private money, created a level playing field for
incumbents and challengers, and broke the hold of powerful interest
money. In conclusion, he thanked the legislature for addressing
the issue of campaign finance reform and expressed his hope the
initiative would not be weakened by the legislative process.
TAPE 94-04, SIDE B
Number 0000
CHAIR JAMES called on the next testifier via teleconference in
Anchorage, Kathy Ashby.
Number 0040
KATHY ASHBY, Alaska Public Interest Research Group, asked if the
voters were trusted to participate in the process, or were elected
officials trusted to act on the people's behalf because of access
to more information. She said, she was grateful HB 317 and HB 368
were introduced and expressed her fear the bills would not reflect
the initiative due to changes after the legislative process. She
urged the committee members to allow the 30,000 plus Alaskans who
signed the petition to vote on the issue directly.
Number 0180
CHAIR JAMES said she trusted the voter. However, if the voter did
not know anything about the issue, it behooved the legislator to
keep the voter informed. Chair James said she was concerned about
the remaining voters who did not sign the petition to understand
the issues. She further stated bills were amended based on the
committee and public input process.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next testifier via teleconference in
Fairbanks, Bonnie Williams.
Number 0229
BONNIE WILLIAMS said she did not believe HB 317, HB 368, and the
initiative would change the system for the better. Ms. Williams
said the bills reduced the maximum donations, reduced the pool of
donors, and crippled political parties. She asserted it would not
do what the findings and purpose suggested. The length of the
campaign, she asserted, increased because the candidate had to
spend more time finding donors. She also alleged reduced
contributions increased the advantage of the rich. She cited the
1978 Supreme Court ruling that said there were no limits to
contributions from the candidate. Therefore, the candidate with
unlimited wealth had unlimited power. She cited Mr. Forbes at the
national level and Mr. Hickel at the state level who did not have
to raise money due to personal wealth. The incumbency factor was
not eliminated as well due to name recognition, she alleged.
Number 0355
CHAIR JAMES called on the next testifier via teleconference in
Anchorage, Stephen Conn.
STEPHEN CONN, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest Research
Group (AKPIRG), said research indicated special interest guided the
political process through funding and political agendas. The
failure to see meaningful governmental support for protection of
Alaska's consumers and an increasing disregard for their interest,
he alleged, prompted the actions of AKPIRG. Mr. Conn concluded,
30,000 Alaskans exercised their rights and asked for a direct vote
by signing the initiative. The people chose to circumvent the
legislative process, he asserted, and indirect representation of
their interest failed. "Let the people vote," he said. Let the
people regain control of the political process. The initiative he
claimed was not perfect, but if the legislature passed a substitute
bill it would be viewed by the people as robbing them of the
opportunity for a direct vote.
Number 0509
CHAIR JAMES called on the next testifier via teleconference in
Anchorage, Michele Keck.
MICHELE KECK said she collected signatures for the initiative. She
stated the people believed there was too much money in politics.
As a result, the average citizen felt disconnected with their
elected officials. She asked the committee members to not weaken
the language of the initiative through the legislative process.
She cited provisions limiting individual contributions, banning
corporate contributions, and eliminating carry-over excess funds
were necessary. Campaign finance reform was needed, she asserted,
for equal access to the political system. In conclusion, she
stated, the people understood the issues in the initiative so let
them vote on it directly.
Number 0599
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Ms. Keck was known as the best
signature gatherer in the state. He asked if it was true she
obtained a signature on a high speed ride at the Alaska State Fair.
MS. KECK responded citizens all over the state in every direction
supported this initiative even upside down.
Number 0625
CHAIR JAMES commented on the testimony regarding the initiative
going straight to the ballot. She stated, campaign finance reform
would not pass the legislature because the issues dealt directly
with the people involved. The initiative process was good because
it forced the legislature to act. Chair James asserted the
committee and public input processes were opportunities for
everyone to participate and asked the testifiers to follow the
process.
Number 0693
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN questioned if the signatures were collected
statewide.
Number 0714
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN answered the signatures were collected
statewide. The law only required two-thirds of the districts. The
best place, he stated, to collect signatures was at the Anchorage
International Airport.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN thanked Representative Finkelstein and said he
also believed in the initiative process as long as it was
representative.
Number 0735
CHAIR JAMES said if the initiative did not exist the House State
Affairs Committee would not be discussing this issue today and she
was happy to be here illustrating her support.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next testifier via teleconference in
Anchorage, Randy Harshman.
Number 0750
RANDY HARSHMAN said he agreed the initiative was the driving
impetus for passing HB 317 and HB 368. He suggested eliminating
cash reserves, outside contributions, and gaming money to decrease
the cost of campaigns. He also said he supported the penalty
increases proposed in the bills. However, he alleged, APOC was not
adequately funded. He cited he filed a complaint in May and it
still had not been investigated.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next testifier via teleconference in
Anchorage, Ed Earnhart.
Number 0855
ED EARNHART said he participated in the petition drive to increase
participation and improve the system. He alleged special interests
were protecting the people from special interests and cited Mr.
Conn from AKPIRG. He asked why a party did not exist that
represented the people. Mr. Earnhart alluded a state income tax
would enhance participation through donation arrangements.
Whatever the outcome, he stated, the republican idea of
representation was best.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next testifier in Juneau, Bart Watson.
Number 0970
BART WATSON said he was not active in party politics and did not
intend to run for a political office. He called himself an
ordinary citizen who recognized the importance of the issue. He
asserted the system was impaired. There was widespread cynicism
about the democratic process, a mistrust of the politicians and
record low voter turnout. This, he believed, was directly related
to the perception big money was involved and responsible for the
decision making. He alleged, politicians were influenced by
campaign contributions, and the big contributions tilted the
balance. In his experience, he stated, the public was amazed to
learn there were no restrictions on the use of excess campaign
funds. These issues needed to be captured in any piece of
legislation passed. The public would feel betrayed if the
legislature passed a bill that gutted the basic provisions and
weakened the initiative. There was a connection between the people
who gave money and the decisions that were made, he stated. A
problem existed when people had to take money to keep up with the
competition. In conclusion, he stated, real reform must address
the perception problem.
Number 1260
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said out-of-state money was not always bad
money. She cited her out-of-state money came from her father and
her best friend. The donation was $25 and it was the first time
her father gave money to a candidate. Therefore, out-of-state
money was not always bad contrary to the perception.
Number 1315
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said his first race was contested and he
received approximately five contributions above $500.
Representative Green asked Mr. Watson if he felt the limits would
change the dynamics of a race.
Number 1388
MR. WATSON said the vast majority of contributions reflected the
ability of an individual to participate in the process. The limit
of $500 would not change the dynamics of a campaign race, he
agreed, but the perception of big money and out-of-state money with
undue influence was not representative of the majority of the
people. The opportunity for influence needed to be eliminated and
returned to a one vote, one person democratic process.
Number 1455
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he agreed with Mr. Watson's testimony
regarding the perception. Representative Green commented on prior
testimony regarding the feeling that contributions were not trying
to buy a vote, but a show of support for similar ideas. He asked,
if the larger contributions were perceived as buying a vote or
thanking a vote.
Number 1508
MR. WATSON said the vast majority of donors contributed because
they liked the candidate. However, there was the perception
special interests were able to buy votes. Mr. Watson addressed the
issue of access. He alleged lobbyists gave money to politicians to
keep the doors open and received more attention than an individual.
He said, it made the voters feel they were cut out of the process.
He reiterated the vast majority of contributions were fine and were
not restricted by the initiative.
Number 1594
CHAIR JAMES thanked Mr. Watson for reinforcing her confidence in
the younger generation, and complimented him on his presentation.
She said, she did not have a problem restricting lobbyist
contributions over restricting lobbyist contributions to a
district. She cited most lobbyists lived in Anchorage and Juneau.
Chair James stated she did not like the idea of a lobbyists, but
her attitude changed after becoming a representative. She again
complimented Mr. Watson on his testimony today and encouraged him
to continue to participate in the process. Chair James further
said she was extremely discouraged by the low voter turnout in her
district and wondered if legislators were not behaving because
people were not voting. She discovered from a survey she conducted
voting was not a priority for most people due to their hectic
lives. She asserted it was important to involve more people in the
process so there was a government of the people, by the people, for
the people. In conclusion, she stated, she was not convinced the
perception would change even after a change in campaign finance
laws.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next testifier in Juneau, Sam Skaggs.
Number 1818
SAM SKAGGS said he was in favor of campaign finance reform. Mr.
Skaggs stated he was here today because his children recently asked
him what government was. He said he explained the traditional
route and talked to them about democracy as the foundation of
America. However, he asked himself at what time did he start to
explain to his children the business of politics. Mr. Skaggs
stated he would like to see the initiative passed or a like bill so
that he would not have to explain to his children the business of
politics. He asserted personal use of campaign funds, campaign
funds carried forward, and out-of-state contributions needed to be
eliminated. He further said the process needed to attract good
people through old fashioned statesmanship. Mr. Skaggs commented
campaign finance reform would return Alaska to Alaskans and
consequently, more people would get involved.
Number 2053
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN responded the initiative and HB 368
allowed out-of-state family loans. Representative Finkelstein
stated he did not include the provision in HB 317 because it was
unwieldy. It was highly confusing and based on the advise of the
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) it seemed better to delete.
He stated the provision in HB 368 allowed a $1,500 loan from family
members.
Number 2158
CHAIR JAMES agreed with the unwieldy feeling Representative
Finkelstein mentioned regarding out-of-state family loans. The
process discouraged loans altogether. She suggested deleting the
provision but was concerned it would change the initiative. As a
result, she stated, Mr. Frank needed to be included in any changes
made to the bills. In conclusion, she said, a negotiation process
was needed to produce the best bill possible.
Number 2250
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the correct figure HB 368 allowed
for an out-of-state family loan was $1,000.
Number 2300
CHAIR JAMES suggested the committee turn to the sections for
review. She stated Section 1, "FINDINGS AND PURPOSE," did not have
a place in the statute and suggested excluding it. Jack ???, was
here to answer any questions regarding the drafting of the bill
from the initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked which bill the committee would look
at first.
CHAIR JAMES replied HB 368.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON commented HB 368 was the vehicle the
committee members would work from.
CHAIR JAMES suggested for practical purposes the committee would
start with HB 368 because it was identical to the concept of the
initiative.
Number 2370
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON inquired if Representative Finkelstein
would share with the committee the comparison chart in front of
him.
Number 2395
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN responded the comparison memo was
available to anyone, and would be glad to share it with the
committee members.
Number 2460
CHAIR JAMES referred to Section 1, "FINDINGS AND PURPOSE." She
said the section was appropriate in an initiative, but not in a
statute.
TAPE 96-5, SIDE A
Number 0000
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said Section 1 was subjective and was not sure
of the proper protocol for having a findings and purpose section.
He wondered if it was to determine legislative intent in future
court cases.
CHAIR JAMES said he was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, he agreed campaigns lasted too long and
were too expensive, but the initiative would not change the cost of
campaigns necessarily because of contributions and loans from the
candidate. In conclusion, he commented, the findings and purpose
section was very subjective.
Number 0114
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed with Representative Ogan's comments
made earlier regarding the subjective finds of Section 1. He
referred the committee members to Section 1, item 5, "there is
great potential for bribery and political corruption; and." He
said, he took great offense to that statement. Representative
Green said he would prefer to see the referenced statement as an
opinion rather than a findings and purpose.
Number 0157
CHAIR JAMES suggested the committee preempt the findings with the
phrase, "there is a perception." It might not be reality, she
said, but everyone knew reality and perception were not always the
same. Even if there was a perception, she continued, it needed to
be corrected. She cited public opinion was the strongest power to
move things. The public opinion, therefore, must be knowledgeable
and forward moving in reality rather than perception.
Number 0203
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, "perception is reality to those who
perceive it."
Number 0216
CHAIR JAMES said we did not have to agree that the public's
perception was the same as the committee's perception, but we did
have to agree there was a perception.
Number 0225
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred the committee members to Section 1,
line 8, "(1) campaigns for elective public offices last too long,
are often uninformative, and are too expensive;" and suggested
adding "there were too many television commercials." He aired at
the end of a campaign he did not like turning the television or
radio on because it was only campaign commercials.
CHAIR JAMES said it was almost 9:45 a.m. and the committee needed
to move forward to HB 419.
Number 0259
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Mr. Frank if the initiative group
would object to deleting Section 1, "FINDINGS AND PURPOSE."
CHAIR JAMES said a findings and purpose section was needed.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "no."
CHAIR JAMES responded we did not have to.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Mr. Frank to respond anyway.
Number 0295
MR. FRANK said a findings and purpose section in a statute was
intended to determine legislative intent and guide court
interpretation. He said the Campaign Finance Reform Now group
would not like to see the findings and purpose section removed from
the initiative. However, if the only thing the legislature did to
the initiative in passing was to take out the findings and purpose
section, it would remain substantially the same. The section was
important, he reiterated, for future judicial interpretation. He
further said, there was a public perception the ability to convert
campaign money to personal use suggested the opportunity for
corruption, and people were shocked to discover that was legal.
CHAIR JAMES said it was time to move to the next agenda item. She
suggested the committee members review Section 1 for the next
committee meeting.
HB 419 - DISPOSAL OF FIREARMS BY PUBLIC AGENCIES
Number 0500
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 419.
CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Pete Kott, sponsor of HB 419.
Number 0514
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT stated the Department of Administration
used to sell excess service revolvers, confiscated firearms, and
ammunition. In 1995 the policy changed so that only hunting rifles
and shotguns were sold at public auctions and handguns were
destroyed. However, due to public pressure, the policy changed so
that weapons would be sold to a federally licensed firearms dealer
at which point a contractual agreement would be made to sell the
weapons to a police department or law enforcement agency. HB 419,
he said, was similar to the existing policy except it allowed the
dealer to sell the weapons to the public and not just law
enforcement agencies. A background check would be required due to
the Brady Bill on anyone that purchased a weapon. The bill would
prevent the Administration from oscillating back and forth and
returning to the previous policy of destroying weapons. He
asserted it was a substantial loss of revenue ranging from $14,000
to $150,000 or according to the 1994 number of weapons disposed of
that represented 25 percent of the division's disposal budget. In
conclusion, he commented the opportunity should be retained to sell
weapons to the public.
Number 0731
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred the committee members to Section 1
and questioned why it restricted the municipalities.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT replied there was not a specific reason for
restricting municipalities and questioned if the section even
applied to municipalities as it read.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded AS 12.36.030(b) dealt with law
enforcement agencies in general. In Anchorage, he cited, it would
affect how the Anchorage Police Department dealt with weapons. He
stated, he was not sure if it was the intent to restrict the
municipalities.
Number 0800
CHAIR JAMES said she had a problem with the confiscation of assets
in general. She alleged an asset should be converted to cash as
opposed to retaining it. She asked Representative Porter to
further explain his concern regarding the restrictions of
municipalities.
Number 0840
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would like to see in general the
state government interfere less with the city government just as he
would like to see the federal government interfere less with the
state government. He stated as a member of a municipal assembly it
was always frustrating when the ability to make certain decisions
were circumvented by the state. Representative Porter further
cited he knew of many city politicians that would disagree with the
state. He lastly commented it was a giant step backwards for
communities that had already addressed the issue.
Number 0912
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT replied he was not sure how HB 419 would change
a municipal policy.
Number 0925
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated a municipality wanted the ability to
make the policy. HB 419 allowed the destruction of unsafe and
unserviceable weapons whereby the Anchorage municipality, for
example, had a policy that sold sought after weapons such as
collector items. The provision was a result of years of
negotiations. He lastly said, "Saturday Night Specials" did not
return to the streets and it was a city concern.
Number 0980
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT replied the intent of HB 419 was not to allow
"Saturday Night Specials" to return to the street, but required the
municipalities to sell usable weapons to a licensed federal arms
dealer who would in return sell to the general public.
Number 1000
CHAIR JAMES suggested eliminating language that addressed the
municipalities.
Number 1015
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he would not object to Chair James'
suggestion.
Number 1020
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Representative Kott to reiterate the
differences between the current policy and HB 419.
Number 1040
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT replied the existing policy at one point last
year stated serviceable excess weapons with value were sold to the
public. In the fall, the policy changed so that some weapons were
destroyed. However, due to public pressure, the policy now stated
excess weapons were sold to a licensed federal firearms dealer who
in turn sold them to law enforcement agencies. HB 419 extended the
policy to allow weapons to be sold to the general public. In
conclusion, he said, the public safety was protected because a
background check was needed to purchase a weapon from a dealer.
Number 1169
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if a state employee would be
responsible for the background check.
Number 1192
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the state's responsibility ended upon
disposal of the weapons to the licensed dealer. The dealer would
then be responsible for ensuring the purchaser met the
prerequisites under federal law.
Number 1215
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated under HB 419 the weapons would be
sold to a dealer and not directly to the public.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said she was correct.
Number 1230
CHAIR JAMES stated she agreed with the bill because it gave the
people an option. If you limited the buyers, she alleged, you
limited the value. She further stated historical weapons should be
sold for their value rather than given to a museum.
Number 1270
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said as co-sponsor of HB 419 he felt it was a
responsible way to dispose of excess firearms. The bill required
the weapons to be sold to a licensed firearms dealer who was
required to follow federal guidelines. In conclusion, he asserted,
the background check would be enforced.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next testifier, Dugan Petty, Director,
Division of General Services, Department of Administration.
DUGAN PETTY, Director, Division of General Services, Department of
Administration, stated the fiscal note for HB 419 would increase
receipts by 10.4 thousand and of that $3,944 would go directly to
the general fund. The bill as written did not direct where the
funds went and because the property was not classified as surplus
the money would go to the general fund. The remaining $6,432 was
based on an assumption. He said he would be happy to answer any
questions regarding the fiscal note. HB 419 required the
department to sell handguns to the general public which was not
consistent with the current policy. The current policy required a
number of reviews to determine if a firearm was serviceable and
safe, and unsafe firearms were destroyed. The remaining would be
recirculated to other state agencies if there was a need. He
further said collectible firearms and antiques would be made
available for display, and the department was considering making
them available for gun safety programs. The policy, however, did
not make these firearms available to the public. The weapons were
sold to a licensed dealer in compliance with federal guidelines.
Number 1470
CHAIR JAMES said the current policy suggested the general public
did not have a need for these weapons which posed a basic
philosophy difference. She asserted forfeited private property
should be converted to cash. She did not have a problem with the
state using the cash to offset expenses. However, she did not want
the state to retain the piece of property. In conclusion, she
explained, if there was a forfeiture it should be sold for the
cash.
Number 1535
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the assumption was based on the State
Trooper's revenue.
Number 1545
MR. PETTY replied the assumption was based on an historical average
of firearms in the surplus property program. Therefore, that would
include the Department of Corrections, for example, and not just
the Department of Public Safety.
Number 1570
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked how much money would stay with the
municipalities if the committee adopted to delete Section 1.
Number 1584
MR. PETTY replied the assumptions were generated from state
agencies and not municipalities.
Number 1590
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated this was state firearms and not
municipalities.
MR. PETTY replied that was correct.
Number 1600
MR. PETTY responded to Chair James' comments regarding forfeited
property. He said HB 419 still allowed an agency discretion to
retain unclaimed and owner unknown property.
Number 1630
CHAIR JAMES said she understood and did not agree with the
principle.
Number 1640
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS questioned how the state obtained these
weapons.
Number 1650
MR. PETTY replied there were a number of way. He cited, surplus
state property, firearms seized in an arrest and not claimed but
used as evidence, firearms seized in an arrest and not claimed and
not used as evidence, firearms seized by the court, and firearms
seized in a controlled substance arrest.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next testifier, Gretchen Pence, Special
Assistant, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Public Safety.
Number 1715
GRETCHEN PENCE, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety, said it was the position of the
Administration that confiscated and surplus weapons should not be
sold to the public. The state was not in the business of selling
firearms, she asserted. In response to the public, when the state
announced it would destroy some firearms, the policy was modified.
The current policy, therefore, stated the weapons would be sold to
a licensed firearms dealer who would in turn sell them to law
enforcement agencies only. The weapons before being sold were
reviewed and those deemed unsafe or unlawful would be destroyed.
The weapons unclaimed would be held by the department, and every
attempt would be made to determine the rightful owner. Rifles, and
shotguns would be sold to a licensed firearms dealer who would in
turn sell them to the public. Antiques, curios and collectibles
would be pulled and donated to museums for public display. The
Department of Public Safety and all state law enforcement agencies
would have an opportunity to review the list of firearms to
determine if any could be used for their purposes. Other state
agencies would also be able to review the list. Finally, the
remaining firearms would be available to a licensed firearms dealer
who contractually agreed to resell to a law enforcement officer or
agency. In conclusion, she reiterated, the policy of the
Administration was not to be sell weapons to the public.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next testifier via teleconference in
Delta Junction, Bernard Goodno.
Number 1840
BERNARD GOODNO said the Governor reported last week weapons would
be sold to federal firearms dealers who in turn would sell to law
enforcement agencies only. He alleged, this was a "back door" gun
control policy and violated his rights. He asked who decided the
safety of a weapon. He cited a "Saturday Night Special" was a gun
control buzz word. He suggested the Governor and the Department of
Public Safety resign if they could not uphold their oath of office,
and asked them to stop violating his constitutional rights.
Number 1900
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to delete Section 1 from HB 419.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN objected.
CHAIR JAMES called for a discussion regarding the motion.
Number 1919
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded Section 1 was the provision that
placed the state onto the municipalities, and they should be
allowed to make their own decisions. He further stated many
municipalities had already established policies that were
functioning fine.
Number 1942
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked what the deletion of Section 1 did to the
intent of HB 419.
CHAIR JAMES deferred the question to Representative Porter.
Number 1950
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said it would have no affect at all in terms
of the betrothment of firearms by the state. The fiscal note
addressed possession of weapons by the state but did not address
the acquisition of weapons by first class municipalities such as
Anchorage. The disposal method varied for each of the
municipalities based on the needs of the individual city. He
concluded, therefore, it should be left up to the cities and not
"big brother."
Number 2000
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked, if by deleting Section 1, would it
allow local jurisdiction to permit "Saturday Night Specials," for
example, to return to the public.
Number 2018
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER answered yes, and so would HB 419.
Number 2023
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered how deleting Section 1 would affect
local jurisdiction.
Number 2040
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded it did not change a thing. If the
municipalities were mandated, they would not be able to preclude
"Saturday Night Specials" unless they were unsafe or unserviceable.
He said he suspected that did not mean subjectively but
objectively. In other words, if the gun worked it would be deemed
safe and serviceable.
Number 2044
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented he was concerned some municipalities
would be more lenient than others except when required by federal
law. He further questioned if municipalities would want to dispose
of weapons differently; and would the same restrictions apply or
was there a variation.
Number 2081
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied a municipality was bound by the same
federal guidelines. A municipality could not sell weapons to a
felon, for example. However, they could make the decision on what
weapons and in what manner they wanted to return the weapons to the
public. The current policy placed variations on selling
restrictions. A city could also place variations. However, if HB
419 was law, the cities would be bound by it.
Number 2118
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN again asked if there was the possibility a
local jurisdiction would be more lenient towards the disposal of
weapons.
Number 2140
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Representataive Green to further
explain his question.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied more lenient toward the disposal of
weapons.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Representative Green to provide an
example of his concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if a municipality would be more or
less restrictive, if a weapon was sold to a gun dealer and
subsequently sold to the public.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied a municipality in the example cited
by Representative Green would be more lenient because HB 419 as
written stated a dealer could only sell a weapon to a law
enforcement officer or agency.
Number 2153
CHAIR JAMES corrected Representative Porter's previous statement.
She said HB 419 allowed the dealer to sell to the public and not to
a law enforcement office or agency.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER accepted the correction.
Number 2157
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated by deleting Section 1 it took away
the dictation and control of the municipalities. Furthermore, a
municipality could implement any policy through an ordinance.
Number 2170
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Kott to reponed as sponsor of HB
419.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed with the merit of the discussion. He
asserted his intention was not to restrict municipalities. The
emphasis was rather at the state level. Representative Kott
further stated municipalities in their right mind could make a
determination as to what weapons to sell to the public. He agreed
it could be decentralized to that level. He was not so sure if
deleting Section 1 was the answer and suggested a conceptual
amendment that deleted municipalities from the bill. Section 4
would need to be changed as well, he said.
Number 2223
CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Porter to make a motion for a
conceptual amendment.
Number 2224
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that Representative Kott remove the
requirement of the municipalities in HB 419 and do whatever was
needed to achieve that purpose.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was an objection.
Number 2240
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN removed his objection to delete Section 1. He
further stated Representative Porter was the Chair of the House
Judiciary Committee in line with the next committee of referral for
HB 419. He said he agreed with the conceptual amendment.
CHAIR JAMES, hearing no objection to the conceptual amendment, it
was so ordered.
Number 2283
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if there were other policies related
to the disposal of property such as automobiles.
Number 2290
MR. PETTY replied there were a series of unclaimed property
statutes referenced in HB 419. He stated firearms and property
were treated the same if confiscated in an arrest and used as
evidence.
Number 2325
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved HB 419 move from the committee with
conceptual amendments, fiscal notes and individual recommendations
to the next committee of referral. There was an objection, so a
roll call vote was taken. RepresentativesJames, Ogan, Green,
Ivan, Porter, and Willis voted in favor of moving the bill.
Representative Robinson voted against moving the bill. So HB 419
moved from the House State Affairs Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked to explain her objection. She stated
the current policy was good and did not believe a change was
warranted.
CHAIR JAMES replied policies changed over night.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Committee meeting at
10:20 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|