Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/25/2000 05:05 PM 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
April 25, 2000
5:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Scott Ogan
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative Hal Smalley
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 179
"An Act eliminating the Alaska Public Offices Commission and all
campaign contribution and expenditure limits; transferring the
administration of lobbying, conflict of interest, and financial
disclosure statutes from the Alaska Public Offices Commission to
the division of elections; relating to reporting of campaign
contributions and expenditures; defining 'full disclosure,'
'purposely,' 'recklessly,' and 'resident'; amending the
definition of 'contribution,' 'group,' and 'political party';
changing the residency requirements for candidates for public
offices; and providing for criminal penalties for violation of
these provisions."
- MOVED CSSSHB 179(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 179
SHORT TITLE: APOC REPEAL: CAMPAIGN/DISCLOSURE/LOBBYIST
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) COGHILL, Sanders
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
4/07/99 671 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/07/99 671 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
4/15/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/15/99 (H) <BILL HEARING CANCELED>
4/19/99 866 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
4/19/99 866 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/19/99 866 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
4/22/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/22/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/22/99 (H) MINUTE(STA)
4/27/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/27/99 (H) BILL CANCELED
4/29/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/29/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/29/99 (H) MINUTE(STA)
5/06/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
5/06/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
5/06/99 (H) MINUTE(STA)
4/25/00 (H) STA AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
BROOKE MILES, Regulation of Lobbying
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Department of Administration
PO Box 110222
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0222
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on Version I of SSHB 179 and
offered two amendments.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-36, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives James, Green, Whitaker and
Hudson. Representative Ogan arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 179-APOC REPEAL: CAMPAIGN/DISCLOSURE/LOBBYIST
CHAIR JAMES announced that the only order of business today is
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 179, "An Act eliminating
the Alaska Public Offices Commission and all campaign
contribution and expenditure limits; transferring the
administration of lobbying, conflict of interest, and financial
disclosure statutes from the Alaska Public Offices Commission to
the division of elections; relating to reporting of campaign
contributions and expenditures; defining 'full disclosure,'
'purposely,' 'recklessly,' and 'resident'; amending the
definition of 'contribution,' 'group,' and 'political party';
changing the residency requirements for candidates for public
offices; and providing for criminal penalties for violation of
these provisions."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS), Version I (1-LS0401\I, Kurtz,
4/25/00), as the working draft. There being no objection, it was
so ordered and Version I was before the committee.
Number 0089
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, speaking as the sponsor of SSHB 179,
pointed out that Version I is significantly different from the
original bill. The bill includes four sections in which three
things are accomplished. First, page 1, line 10, inserts the
word "exceeds". Currently, if someone gives a contribution of
$499.50, that person is required to send in a reporting form.
With the language "exceeds", the burden of reporting [for an
amount under $500] is switched to the person/group doing the
campaigning. On page 2, line 25, AS 15.13.080, which is being
repealed, is actually the section in statute that requires that
the individual fill out the reporting form.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL turned to Section 2, a new amendment to AS
15.13.090 to exempt telephone calls from some of the reporting
requirements. In some cases, he explained, APOC had been saying
that a telephone call soliciting money for a fund raiser should
have a disclaimer. However, he understood the statutes reference
to "other communications" to refer to the use of computer
technology. He related his belief that it is probably an attempt
to get at the polling problem. Therefore, this amendment
clarifies the statute.
Number 0363
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL addressed Section 3. He directed the
committee to page 2, line 10, which eliminates the reference to
AS 15.13.080(c), which he read as follows: "The contributor's
statement shall be filed with the commission by the contributor
no later than 30 days after the contribution that requires the
contributor to report under AS 15.13.040(d) is made."
CHAIR JAMES related her understanding that the change in Section
3 is the second part of the aforementioned change in Section
1(A).
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that [the contribution] would
still be a cumulative amount.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that this version would repeal all of
[AS 15.13].080. He asked if that would impact anything other
than reporting [amounts that exceed $500], such as having to
report in excess of $100 in the last few days before the
election.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied no; he specified that it refers to
the individual at the $500 level. He read from AS 15.13.080(a)
as follows: "An individual who contributes $500, or goods or
services with a value of $500, to a candidate shall file a
contributor's statement as required by this section." Therefore,
he said, the burden is placed on the campaign rather than the
contributor.
Number 0683
BROOKE MILES, Regulation of Lobbying, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), Department of Administration, remarked that
since this [version] just came about, staff has done its best to
understand it. With respect to eliminating the contributor
reports for candidates and groups, this would mean that there
would be nothing available during certain reporting periods. If
HB 225 passes and governors are running for four years, for three
of those four years there will be no data available that would
have been required to be filed by the maximum contributors under
current law until the year end report date, February 15 of each
year. Therefore, the public will not have that information
available.
MS. MILES related her understanding of the new CS in that people
who contribute money to a candidate will never be required to
file a report because they can only contribute $500, which also
applies to a political action committee (PAC). However, a person
who contributes substantial amounts to a party would be required
to file a disclosure report. She did note that the portion of
the law requiring the reporting of independent expenditures
remains intact.
MS. MILES turned to the issue of telephone calls. She said APOC
staff have never told people to say that the telephone call is
paid for by "Joe Blow for candidate." Staff have instructed
folks to identify by name who the caller is. She pointed out
that when computers perform the calling, one can't even ask who
is calling. For example, there was a [computer] call [without
any identification] that reminded folks to come to a fund raiser,
and staff recommended mentioning the campaign on whose behalf the
call was being placed. To that end, staff did develop some
alternative language; there are two choices. Ms. Miles informed
the committee that the only problem that staff could determine in
regard to the language in the CS is that if it were a negative
computer call performed in the closing days of the campaign, it
could be extremely dangerous and difficult to determine the
origin of such a call.
Number 1003
CHAIR JAMES remarked that she has always felt that the
responsibility of reporting these funds would be the
responsibility of the person receiving the funds. However, she
understands [Ms. Miles] to be saying that the people contributing
the funds should report them so that people know. Therefore, she
asked what problem would exist with full disclosure that doesn't
currently exist. She related her belief that full disclosure
seems more important than any of the other things included. She
asked how often would one be required to report contributions
without causing extra time and effort to APOC.
MS. MILES responded that more disclosure by the candidate is an
excellent idea, and with electronic filing that could be [an
appropriate decision]. She acknowledged that many other
legislators share Chair James' concern in regard to the burden
being on the contributor.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there are any statistics in regard to the
number of people who failed to [file their campaign
contributions] and what has been done to those people.
MS. MILES replied, "The commission has held harmless, in
moratorium, anyone who files late, although we do request that
they file when we catch up with the paperwork." She said she
doesn't believe that civil penalties have been assessed for
delinquent filing on contributor reports. The commission shared
some of the aforementioned concerns regarding the burden being on
the person who already contributed. She noted that it was never
subject to a fine before campaign finance reform occurred.
However, the requirement was different before campaign finance
reform: as APOC staff caught up the two databases, the
contributor would be notified that he/she had not filed and there
was a request to do so. Still, civil penalties were not part of
the statute for late filing or for not filing.
CHAIR JAMES commented that those giving large contributions are
probably more astute about the rules and regulations. However,
other contributors may not understand the need to file, which has
bothered her. She related her belief that the reporting
requirements should be the [candidate's] responsibility, not the
contributor's responsibility; therefore, she agreed with this
change, which perhaps would also make disclosure easier to
accomplish next year. Chair James remarked that she has always
been interested in disclosure, which she felt would keep
candidates up on reporting.
Number 1343
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON related his understanding of Ms. Miles'
testimony that adoption of this CS with the language "exceeds
[contributions of] $500" would mean that there would be no
reports because individuals cannot contribute more than $500.
However, he pointed out, such contributions would be reported in
the candidate's APOC 30-day report.
MS. MILES indicated agreement and specified [that such
contributions would be reported in the] 30-day, 7-day and 10-day
reports. She further agreed that the public can obtain copies of
those reports, but that information would not be available
between January 1 of the calendar year and late July of that year
when the first report is filed.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON understood, then, that prior to the 30-day
report no information would be available. However, he supposed
that under the current situation one could request [such
information] from APOC.
MS. MILES agreed and remarked that people can search the
database.
Number 1450
CHAIR JAMES pointed out that there is an amendment, 1-LS0401\I.1,
Kurtz, 4/25/00, which changes the $100 to $200. She explained
that currently, those who make contributions in an amount less
than $100 don't have to list their name. The $100 amount has
been there since 1975, and thus she felt that an increase to $200
would be appropriate. She noted that factoring in inflation
would place that at $209.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1,
labeled 1-LS0401\I.1, Kurtz, 4/25/00, which read as follows:
Page 1, following line 3:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Section 1. AS 15.13.040(a) is amended to read:
(a) Except as provided in (g) of this section,
each candidate shall make a full report, upon a form
prescribed by the commission, listing the date and amount of
all expenditures made by the candidate, the total amount of
all contributions, including all funds contributed by the
candidate, and for all contributions in excess of $200
[$100] in the aggregate a year, the name, address, principal
occupation, and employer of the contributor and the date and
amount contributed by each contributor. The report shall be
filed in accordance with AS 15.13.110 and shall be certified
correct by the candidate or campaign treasurer.
* Sec. 2. AS 15.13.040(b) is amended to read:
(b) Each group shall make a full report upon a
form prescribed by the commission, listing
(1) the name and address of each officer and
director;
(2) the aggregate amount of all
contributions made to it; and, for all contributions in
excess of $200 [$100] in the aggregate a year, the name,
address, principal occupation, and employer of the
contributor, and the date and amount contributed by each
contributor; and
(3) the date and amount of all contributions
made by it and all expenditures made, incurred or authorized
by it."
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 3"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
[End of Amendment 1]
MS. MILES commented that from a public policy standpoint, there
will be fewer names available to the public.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON remarked that simple inflation [would
support this increase to $200].
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the people that come in and look at
these reports are the public or people working on campaigns.
MS. MILES specified that it is an online searchable database and
thus the commission doesn't know. People who come into the
office sometimes are in the campaign business, sometimes may be
considering running for office, and sometimes they merely want to
know this information.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objection to the adoption of
Amendment 1. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
CHAIR JAMES pointed out that there are two amendments offered by
Ms. Miles.
Number 1740
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER related his belief that the concern lies
with polling telephone communications. Therefore, he felt it
would be appropriate to consider a conceptual amendment that
deals with that. He acknowledged that it is annoying to receive
a call in the middle of the night; he expressed the need for the
public to know who is behind such a poll.
CHAIR JAMES informed the committee that the sponsor of SSHB 179
liked Ms. Miles' [first] amendment, which read as follows:
[Page 2, line 6, delete (c); insert] "(c) Telephone
communications need only be identified by the name of
the candidate, group or individual paying for the
communication."
MS. MILES explained that under the current law, polls are not
subject to [AS 15.13].090 because the purpose of polls is to
gather information rather than to influence the outcome of an
election. She noted that APOC has received more calls regarding
polls than unidentified campaign calls. Ms. Miles said she
believes that it needs a broader scope of amendment within AS
15.13[.090].
CHAIR JAMES commented that she has surmised that "we" are moving
in the direction of trying to manage by polls, which she believes
are persuasive and suggestive. People being polled may take a
position that they never had taken before the question was asked.
Therefore, she is totally opposed to such polls. In her last
newsletter she had noted that any polls she conducted would
request narrative responses. She agreed that polling has gotten
out of hand, but she didn't know how that could be remedied in
SSHB 179.
Number 1947
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER agreed that this is probably not the
appropriate bill in which to address this. Therefore, he
withdrew the notion of a conceptual amendment.
CHAIR JAMES restated the first amendment offered by Ms. Miles
[see above].
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER remarked that the language begs the
question in regard to what is a communication.
CHAIR JAMES read AS 15.13.090(a):
(a) All advertisements, billboards, handbills, paid-for
television and radio announcements and other
communications intended to influence the election of a
candidate or outcome of a ballot proposition or
question shall be clearly identified by the words "paid
for by" followed by the name and address of the
candidate, group or individual paying for the
advertising. In addition, candidates and groups must
identify the name of their campaign chairman.
CHAIR JAMES then read the new subsection (c) created by this
proposed CS [Version I], as follows:
(c) The provisions of (a) of this section do not apply
to a telephone call.
She reread the first amendment [see above] offered by Ms. Miles.
CHAIR JAMES informed the committee that the second amendment
offered by Ms. Miles read as follows:
[Page 2, line 6] (c) The provisions in (a) requiring
disclosure of the address and campaign chairman of the
candidate or group do not apply to telephone
communications.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON remarked that he liked the first amendment
[see above].
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated he also preferred it because it
is explicit as to what is required for telemarketing. However,
if someone is calling someone soliciting contributions, that is
(indisc.- faint) factor, which is not always true for
telemarketing.
CHAIR JAMES asked whether members were thinking that the language
in subsection (c) of the proposed CS [Version I] is appropriate.
She said she read the [second] amendment offered by Ms. Miles to
merely insert the language that subsection (a) includes.
Therefore, she doesn't believe this amendment does anything
different.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON disagreed. If the current language of
subsection (c) in the proposed CS is used, he said, then no name
or identification has to be used in a telephone call. However,
the amendment specifies what [one must say], and that is the only
requirement. He agreed with Ms. Miles' first amendment.
CHAIR JAMES noted Representative Ogan's presence and recapped
what the committee had done thus far.
Number 2295
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON moved that the committee adopt Amendment 2,
[Ms. Miles' first proposed amendment], which read as follows:
Page 2, line 6,
Delete subsection (c)
Insert "(c) Telephone communications need
only be identified by the name of the
candidate, group or individual paying for the
communication."
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
CHAIR JAMES, in response to a query, noted that the next
committee of referral is the House Judiciary Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked, "If no one is paying for the call, if
I'm calling people up, do I have to say that I paid for this
call?"
MS. MILES explained that generally a person making calls for a
campaign will identify the candidate on whose behalf he/she is
calling. She acknowledged that every individual has the right to
pick up a phone to call whomever and say whatever.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN announced that since the committee has
already discussed this, he would accept the committee's judgment.
Number 2432
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to move CSSSHB 179, version
1-LS0401\I, Kurtz, 4/25/00, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note.
He requested unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was
so ordered and CSSSHB 179(STA) was moved from the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:40
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|