03/15/2008 11:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR37 | |
| HB374 | |
| HB261 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 374 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 261 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HJR 37 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 15, 2008
11:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Andrea Doll
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Kyle Johansen
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 37
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
to correct obsolete references to the office of secretary of
state by substituting references to the office of lieutenant
governor and to eliminate personal pronoun references in the
sections proposed to be amended.
- MOVED HJR 37 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 374
"An Act requiring publication of notice by state agencies when
they transfer positions in the classified, partially exempt, or
exempt service from one area of the state to another."
- HEARD AND HELD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 261
"An Act establishing a program of public funding for the
financing of election campaigns of candidates for state elected
offices, to be known as the Clean Elections Act."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 37
SHORT TITLE: CONST AM: SEC. OF STATE REFERENCES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GRUENBERG
02/19/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/08 (H) STA, JUD
03/13/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/13/08 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/15/08 (H) STA AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 374
SHORT TITLE: REQUIRE NOTICE OF RELOCATION OF STATE JOB
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) DOLL
02/19/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/08 (H) STA, FIN
03/15/08 (H) STA AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 261
SHORT TITLE: PUBLICALLY FINANCED ELECTIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LEDOUX
05/15/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/15/07 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
01/25/08 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
01/25/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/08 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/21/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/21/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/21/08 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/06/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/06/08 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/15/08 (H) STA AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
SUSAN HARGIS, Staff
Representative Andrea Doll
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 374 on behalf of
Representative Doll, prime sponsor.
JACK KREINHEDER, Chief Analyst
Office of the Director
Office of Management & Budget
Office of the Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
374.
NICKI NEAL, Director
Division of Personnel & Labor Relations
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
374.
SUZANNE HANCOCK, Staff
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 261 on
behalf of Representative LeDoux, prime sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as co-sponsor of HB 261.
ERIC EHST, Director
Clean Elections Institute
Phoenix, Arizona
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
hearing on HB 261 on behalf of the Clean Elections Institute.
TIM JUNE, Chair
Alaskans for Clean Elections
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 261.
ACTION NARRATIVE
VICE CHAIR BOB ROSES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 11:07:22 AM. Representatives
Coghill, Johnson, Gruenberg, Doll, and Roses were present at the
call to order.
HJR 37-CONST AM: SEC. OF STATE REFERENCES
[Contains mention of HJR 7.]
11:08:23 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 37, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska to correct obsolete
references to the office of secretary of state by substituting
references to the office of lieutenant governor and to eliminate
personal pronoun references in the sections proposed to be
amended.
11:08:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG presented HJR 37 as prime sponsor. He
stated his hope that the resolution would be noncontroversial.
He said it is similar to HJR 7, which was sponsored by
Representative Anderson in 2007. As noted in the sponsor
statement and in a memorandum from Jack Chenoweth of Legislative
Legal and Research Services, dated 2/18/08, included in the
committee packet, voters approved a series of amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska in 1970, technically
changing the name, "Office of Secretary of State," to "Office of
the Lieutenant Governor." However, through an oversight, the
drafting attorneys missed two of the references to secretary of
state, located in Article 2, Section 5, and Article 3, Section
25. The proposed resolution would correct that technical
oversight. Furthermore, the resolution would change masculine
pronouns to gender neutral.
11:10:53 AM
VICE CHAIR closed public testimony.
11:11:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report HJR 37 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HJR 37 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 374-REQUIRE NOTICE OF RELOCATION OF STATE JOB
11:11:33 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 374, "An Act requiring publication of notice by
state agencies when they transfer positions in the classified,
partially exempt, or exempt service from one area of the state
to another."
11:12:01 AM
SUSAN HARGIS, Staff, Representative Andrea Doll, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 374 on behalf of Representative Doll,
prime sponsor. She said the bill would require 30-day
notification for any state job that is moved to another location
in Alaska. The intent of the bill is to increase government
transparency. Ms. Hargis said there are a lot of valid reasons
for moving positions around the state, but it is helpful for the
public, legislators, and other agencies to know where those
positions are going to be located.
11:14:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 374, Version 25-LS1322\E, Wayne, 3/14/08,
as a work draft.
11:15:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes.
11:15:19 AM
MS. HARGIS noted that the only change made in Version E was the
deletion of the Alaska Railroad from the language, because the
Alaska Railroad is a public corporation and its employees are
not defined as state employees. Furthermore, the corporation
does not utilize the classified, partially exempt, or exempt
categories.
11:16:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection, therefore
Version E was before the committee as a work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Hargis what the sponsor's
position would be if after exempting one corporation, others
wanted to be exempted as well.
MS. HARGIS responded that no other agencies have made the
request.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recommended that the bill sponsor check
with the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, "so that they don't
derail the bill at the very last minute." He asked for the
definition of "transfer", indicating his concern that people
might try to avoid the proposed bill's requirement by calling a
move a temporary assignment rather than a transfer. He cited
the definition from Black's Law Dictionary, which read as
follows:
transfer, vb. 1. To convey or remove from one place or
one person to another; to pass or hand over from one
to another, esp. to change over the possession or
control of.
11:19:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL conceded that Representative Gruenberg had
an excellent point, and she suggested the bill could be amended
to add that definition of "transfer". She explained the reason
for using the word "transfer" is to clarify that a new job is
not being created.
11:19:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is not going "to suggest any
definition because it's something that's going to require some
thought." He said he thinks the bill sponsor needs to look at
ways that, in the worst-case scenario, "people could try to get
around this," and tighten the language to prevent that from
happening.
11:19:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he has a similar concern with the
language, "area of state". He asked if the 30-day notice
requirement would apply to an office moving from Juneau to
Douglas or a legislator moving back to his constituency. He
said he thinks there are potential "hang-ups" related to the
bill because of the loose definition of "area", and he said he
would hate the bill to be interpreted so that a legislator would
have to give a 30-day notice just to move from one office to
another within the capitol.
11:21:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL noted that reference to Juneau means the
City & Borough of Juneau; therefore, Douglas would be included.
She indicated her willingness to tighten the language of the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON reiterated that "area" is broad language
that needs to be defined more narrowly.
11:22:02 AM
MS. HARGIS, in response to a question from Vice Chair Roses,
said the Division of Personnel tracks the location of positions
currently.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to Representative Doll's
remark about the City & Borough of Juneau, suggested guidelines
based on city and borough, but noted that much of the state is
in unorganized boroughs.
11:24:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his understanding that there is
currently an online notification system that announces positions
open for hire, and those already in state employment are given
preference.
MS. HARGIS responded that the Division of Personnel has a system
to denote where a position is open at any given time. For
example, when a position is transferred, it would be listed on
the system. She pointed out that sometimes the current holder
of a position is transferred with the position, while other
times the position is transferred in open status. The bill
would encompass both scenarios, she said. She said it is in the
public's best interest to assist in figuring out where certain
positions and employees in them can be contacted.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he is trying to figure out "how it
might work as a system." He stated, "It just seems to me,
looking at the fiscal note, that this is going to require more.
And so, I'm kind of heading towards the direction of if there's
already a system in place - if somebody already put those out -
that it can justify that."
MS. HARGIS said the Office of the Lieutenant Governor has a 30-
day public notice system, "and they said it would not be a
problem and it would not be an extra cost, because they're
simply posting onto that same system."
11:27:23 AM
JACK KREINHEDER, Chief Analyst, Office of the Director, Office
of Management & Budget, shared that he has lived in Juneau for
30 years and recognizes Representative Doll's concern regarding
the transfer of position out of Juneau. However, he stated that
the administration does not support the bill because it views it
as micro-managing the executive branch and state agencies. He
said the Office of the Governor believes that departments need
"the flexibility to replace staff where agency functions and
services require those positions" - factors he said will
naturally change over time. He noted that historically there
have been positions not only transferred out of Juneau, but out
of Anchorage and Fairbanks to Juneau as well. He said even
though the bill proposes notification, without placing any
restriction on the transfers, the Office of the Governor views
the proposal as a "slippery slope" and is not comfortable "going
down that road of having to provide that kind of notification."
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL asked Mr. Kreinheder if he would
characterize the objection of the Office of the Governor to HB
374 as resulting from "thinking that there's an intrusion here
from the legislature."
MR. KREINHEDER replied that that's one concern. He noted that
Senator Elton had requested that the Office of the Governor
review and essentially provide approval for transfers. He said
the Office of the Governor did not support that request. He
said the governor does not want to micro-manage even her own
departments; she wants to hire good administrators and allow
them to do their work.
The committee took an at-ease from 11:31:22 AM to 11:33:45 AM.
11:33:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that the Fiscally Responsible
Alaskans Needing Knowledge (FRANK) Initiative [of 1994] had wide
public support, and the governor has taken a position in favor
of open and transparent government. He said the bill sponsor is
trying to "expand that concept into an area that people have
some interest in." He asked Mr. Kreinheder, "Why in the world
would the governor take a position against the position she's
already taken, against the public's right to know?" He added,
"We're going to find ourselves going down the road they are in
Washington, D.C., where Congress is trying to open government,
and the executive branch has in the past, under several
administrations - both parties - tried to close it." He said
that is not popular with the people, is not good public policy,
and is "going in the wrong direction."
MR. KREINHEDER responded that the administration is happy to
provide information requested by the legislature and members of
the public regarding transfer positions, and has done so in the
past through the Department of Administration. He clarified
that the problem the governor has with the bill is related to
the issue of advance notification of positions.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the concern is in regard to
the 30-day requirement. He said he does not know what the bill
sponsor thinks on the matter, but he said [the 30-day
requirement] is a detail that ought to be able to be resolved
"so we can get on with the process and the policy of the
administration."
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said, "No."
11:36:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated his understanding that the state
is never in the practice of moving jobs and not announcing that
information in the database.
11:36:14 AM
MR. KREINHEDER answered that the information is available. He
deferred to Ms. Neal for further comment.
11:36:52 AM
NICKI NEAL, Director, Division of Personnel & Labor Relations,
responded to questions previously posed by the committee. She
confirmed that the location of positions is tracked by the
division and that information is processed in its system either
prior to or concurrent with the transfer position.
11:37:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked what practical problems a 30-day
requirement may cause.
MS. NEAL explained that there are times when positions are
transferred while vacant, and recruiting takes place in one
location and may be a difficult and lengthy process. She said,
"Then they may decide ... it's feasible to have this work done
from another location, so that would essentially delay the
filling and accomplishment of work, if once that decision was
made, a 30-day notice period was required."
11:38:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said she thinks two different issues are
being discussed. The first scenario Ms. Neal just described,
but the second pertains to jobs where it is known well ahead of
time that the position is going to be moved from one location to
another. She asked Ms. Neal if she agrees.
MS. NEAL said that's correct. When a position is filled, there
is a period of time in which notices are provided to an employee
and the union prior to the position being filled, whereas when
the position is vacant, the employee is [offered the job] and
moved rather quickly.
11:39:23 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES asked Ms. Neal if passage of the proposed bill
would conflict with any current negotiated agreements, in terms
of the handling of transfers.
MS. NEAL replied that to best of her knowledge, the answer to
that question is no.
11:39:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL reviewed that the bill lists
"classified", "partially exempt", and "exempt" service. He
asked, "Who would this not cover with regard to transfer of a
position?"
MS. NEAL answered, "I'm not aware of anyone that it would not
cover in the executive branch."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked what "the body of possible
movements" would be and how many of [these positions] have been
moved within the last two years.
11:41:01 AM
MS. NEAL said combining classified, partially exempt, and exempt
categories, there are approximately 15,000 positions. She said
she does not have a count of the number of positions transferred
on hand. Ms. Neal referred to a document prepared by Senator
Elton based on numbers the Division of Personnel provided,
[entitled, "The erosion of state jobs in Juneau," included in
the committee packet], in which Senator Elton indicates that 136
positions were transferred out of Juneau in the last 18 months.
However, Ms. Neal said there were several positions transferred
into Juneau. She said, I don't have that number right, nor do I
have the number available right now of positions that were moved
between other locations throughout the state." She offered to
gather that information for the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested perhaps the question to ask is
how many people move to Anchorage from other parts of the state
each year?
11:42:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his understanding that "this ...
is not limited just to the executive branch; this is all
agencies." He questioned whether a line would be crossed in
terms of separation of powers by telling the judicial system or
instructing the university to announce job transfers.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG addressed Representative Johnson's
concern by noting that the House State Affairs Standing
Committee sponsored a bill in 2007 that would provide a
procedure for the removal of [the University of Alaska's Board
of Regents], and that bill still resides in the House Judiciary
Standing Committee. He cited AS 14.40.170, which lists the
duties and powers of the Board of Regents, as mandated by the
legislature, and he said that shows there is a precedent for
giving such directives. Representative Gruenberg directed
attention to subsection (b), beginning on page 2, line 29, which
read as follows:
(b) In this section, "state agency" means a
department, institution, board, commission, division,
authority, public corporation, committee, or other
administrative unit of the executive branch of state
government, including the University of Alaska, but
not including the Alaska Railroad Corporation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the language in subsection (b) is
"internally inconsistent," because he stated his understanding
that the University of Alaska is not part of the executive
branch.
MR. KREINHEDER said he hesitates to respond. Notwithstanding
that, he offered his understanding that the university "is
within the executive branch, but has certain special provisions
that apply to it." In response to a follow-up question from
Representative Gruenberg, he said the Alaska Railroad
Corporation is "a special case," because it is not subjected to
the Executive Budget Act, whereas the majority of state
corporations - including the Permanent Fund Corporation and
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) - are.
11:47:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "If this is important enough to
do, why isn't the judicial branch included? Because when judges
and important judicial employees are transferred around, that
has a major effect on communities." He also suggested that in
addition to announcing transfers, new and deleted positions be
announced.
11:48:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL related that other areas of the state are
increasing the number of their state employees, while Juneau -
the capital city - is the only location that has a decrease in
state employees. She said she thinks both the FRANK Initiative
and the proposed legislation shows that the public wants to know
and wants to be involved, rather than being told what is going
on after the fact. She said the issue is a philosophical one.
She concluded that this is not a "Juneau thing," although
important to Juneau; it is a policy issue for state.
11:50:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he also would not want the bill to
result in having to report the moving of one office room to
another within the same building.
11:51:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL concurred. He stated that he does not
want the notice to become obstructive to good state government.
He talked about ways to define "location".
11:53:28 AM
MR. KREINHEDER suggested that if the concern is finding out
about transfers that occur from one city or municipality to
another, clarifying language could be inserted [on page 2,
within lines 20-22].
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that some State of Alaska
jobs are located in Seattle, Washington and Washington, D.C. He
said he does not think the bill can be carried out without a
cost to the state, and thus, he recommended the sponsor
reconsider the [zero fiscal notes in the committee packet]. He
said he thinks the committee could help the sponsor figure out a
definition for "location".
11:55:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, regarding the public notices system,
asked Ms. Neal how many "unique page views" are possible on a
monthly basis and how many of those are "from outside state
computers" versus "inside."
11:55:51 AM
MS. NEAL responded that the Office of the Lieutenant Governor
administers the online public notice system, and she could ask
that office for the information.
11:56:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON opined that if the bill were truly about
informing the public, there would need to be some type of
outreach other than "the miniscule number of people that
actually access the Alaska online notices systems." Those few
people, he surmised, consist of contractors looking for bids and
state employees looking to find what positions are open. He said
he thinks the bill is about notifying the government, and for
that reason he cannot support it.
11:57:57 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES, after ascertaining that there was no one else
to testify, closed public testimony.
11:58:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he is not yet prepared to offer an
amendment that would clarify the meaning of "location". He said
it may be necessary to "put a term in there and then put a
definition that goes with it." He emphasized that a definition
is needed.
11:59:28 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES announced that HB 374 was heard and held.
The committee took an at-ease from 12:00:13 PM to 12:11:48 PM.
HB 261-PUBLICALLY FINANCED ELECTIONS
12:11:59 PM
VICE CHAIR ROSES announced that the last order of business was
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 261, "An Act establishing
a program of public funding for the financing of election
campaigns of candidates for state elected offices, to be known
as the Clean Elections Act."
12:12:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute for sponsor substitute (CS) for SSHB 261, Version 25-
LS0929\M, Bullard, 2/21/08, as a work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes.
12:12:55 PM
SUZANNE HANCOCK, Staff, Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska
State Legislature, testified during the hearing on SSHB 261 on
behalf of Representative LeDoux, prime sponsor. She stated that
to her knowledge, the only change made in Version M was to
replace all references to "clean elections" with "publicly
financed elections."
12:13:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection, therefore,
Version M was before the committee as a work draft.
12:13:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor of
SSHB 261, said she thinks there is broad support among the
public for the proposed legislation. She said she is a believer
in the initiative process and the committee process, and "any
kind of policy change like this really needs the support and the
detailed look that the committee process brings to it."
12:14:30 PM
ERIC EHST, Director, Clean Elections Institute, told the
committee that the institute was set up to monitor the
implementation of "clean elections" in Arizona. He said he
would address "some of the common questions and concerns, ...
the urban legends that have grown up around public financing."
He stated that Arizona has had public financing for four
election cycles, having passed its [Clean Elections Act] in 1998
and begun the system in 2000. The system has grown in usage
each year, up to the point where, in 2006, over 60 percent of
eligible candidates used the system, with a projected usage in
the 2008 election of up to 70 percent, he reported. Nine of the
eleven current statewide officers, including the governor's
secretary of state and attorney general, have been elected using
the system, as have 38 of the state's 90 sitting legislators, he
noted.
MR. EHST said the system has been successful, there have been no
problems in its implementation, and it is publically popular.
The latest survey conducted by a nonpartisan organization shows
that 81 percent of registered voters said they thought the
system was important for the state. In the ten years since the
Clean Elections Act was adopted, voter participation has
increased; the 2006 election had the highest voter turnout for a
nonpresidential race since 1982. Furthermore, the Act has
increased the number of people who participate financially in
the process through giving the $5-dollar qualifying
contributions to candidates. The number of people who have
received some financial contributions has increased
exponentially.
12:18:02 PM
MR. EHST turned to the issue of misperceptions related to the
Clean Elections Act. The biggest question, he noted, is whether
the Act results in a free ride for candidates, allowing them to
get the public money and spend it on anything they want without
being accountable. Mr. Ehst debunked that myth by relating that
Arizona's system has set up much more accountability than there
ever was in the campaign finance system prior to the Act. He
backed that up by relating stories of candidates that did not
qualify. He said the donated money must be spent for "actual
campaign purposes" and at fair market value. Any complaints are
investigated, and any fines or penalties come out of the
candidates' pockets.
12:22:03 PM
MR. EHST talked about the equalizing character of a matching
fund system. He said, "If you're running as a Clean Elections
candidate and your opponent, who's a traditionally funded
candidate, raises more money than you get ... from the Clean
Elections system, you get matching funds to make up for that -
to level the playing field." If an independent expenditure
campaign sends out a mailer either in favor of a candidate's
opponent or against the candidate, he noted, that candidate gets
matching funds "to make up for that." He said if a candidate
receives a windfall right before elections and cannot spend it
on his/her campaign, that money has to be returned to the fund.
He said the system works efficiently to "identify these
expenditures ahead of time, as early as possible, and get the
matching money out to the candidates quickly."
MR. EHST brought up a case in which a candidate for governor in
Maine paid her husband $100,000 out of Clean Elections funds to
be a consultant for her campaign. Doing so was not illegal, but
Maine is working on making it so. It is not illegal in Arizona,
he added. The candidate's husband was an actual professional
campaign consultant. Another concern he related was in regard
to the 2006 election campaign, "where the system was voted down
on the ballot ...." He said that was a special case, in which
the people who ran the initiative in California "were not the
actual, national, clean money people working on doing this
across the country." He emphasized the control systems that are
in place to make certain the system is "effective and efficient
and fair to everybody."
12:25:30 PM
VICE CHAIR ROSES asked Mr. Ehst if he is familiar with the
Goldwater Institute Policy Report of March 28, 2006.
MR. EHST answered yes. He said he has been rebutting that
report. He said the report is full of data that has been
distorted to "fit their conclusion," and there is little in it
that is true.
VICE CHAIR ROSES noted that the report found that the Arizona
Clean Elections System had largely failed to live up to its
stated goals - one being that there would be overall improvement
in political participation.
MR. EHST responded that the report's basis for saying that was
primarily based on voter turnout, but the report distorted the
voter turnout data to the point where it was totally
unrecognizable. Mr. Ehst stated, "If you look at voter turnout
by any objective measure, it has been rising steadily with each
election since [the Clean Elections Act] was adopted." He
reiterated that Arizona's 2006 voter turnout was the highest
seen since 1982, a statistic that he noted is from Arizona's
secretary of state. He said the Goldwater Institute Policy
Report includes presidential years, nonpresidential years,
primary elections, general elections, and even one presidential
preference primary that was only for Republicans; therefore,
there is no discernable trend in the data. Furthermore, he
said, the report expresses voter turnout as "a percentage of
voting-age population." He said that means everyone in the
state over the age of 18, including very rapidly rising
populations in Arizona of noncitizen immigrants and ex-felons,
neither of whom can vote. He said he is sure the Goldwater
Institute is not advocating that those groups be allowed to
vote. He said voter turnout, as determined by the percentage of
registered voters or as a percentage of voting eligible people,
and by comparing like elections, has increased steadily. He
added, "It has also risen significantly if you measure ... how
many voters are actually giving money in the form of the $5-
dollar contribution to candidates."
12:28:52 PM
VICE CHAIR ROSES said another claim regarding the Clean
Elections process is that it would encourage more candidates to
run for office; however, the aforementioned report claims that
from 2002 to 2004, the number of primary candidates for office
fell from 247 to 195, the number of statewide candidates fell
from 39 to seven, and the number of legislative candidates fell
from 208 to 188.
MR. EHST responded, "In raw number terms that's correct." He
said 2002 was a record year for candidates for all offices
because, simultaneously, the state was redistricting and term
limits were put in play that went into effect as a result of the
2000 election. All of those factors, he explained, created a
huge number of open seats. The number of candidates today is
significantly higher than it was before the Clean Elections Act
was adopted. He stated, "The Goldwater Institute ... - they
pick the years that they want to, to make it look the worst that
they can." He noted that the number of candidates who use the
Clean Elections system has been rising steadily, as well.
VICE CHAIR ROSES referred to the [United States General
Accounting Office (GAO)] Report to Congressional Committees,
dated May 2003. He read a statement from the report, which
specifically references Maine and Arizona as the two states with
a Clean Elections program, as follows:
The average number of state legislative candidates per
district race in Maine and Arizona in 2000-2002
elections were not notably different than the average
for the two previous elections for '96 and '98.
VICE CHAIR ROSES asked, "So, wouldn't that statement uphold the
statement that the Goldwater Institute made in their report?"
MR. EHST said he does not have the figures used in the GAO
report, but he believes it is in error, particularly because it
references the 2000-2002 elections, which actually had record
numbers of candidates in Arizona.
12:32:47 PM
MR. EHST, in response to a request from Vice Chair Roses, noted
that the long-term trend regarding incumbency is not clear, yet
the Goldwater Institute reported that incumbents are being
reelected at the same rate. He said the problem is [the
institute's] data only considers incumbent reelection rate in
the general election, and in Arizona - particularly for the
legislative seats - 26 of the 30 legislative districts "have a
heavy majority for one party or the other." Any incumbent who
can survive a primary challenge in Arizona is virtually
guaranteed to be reelected, he relayed; however, in Arizona's
2002 and 2004 primary elections, a number of incumbents were
"knocked off," and the incumbent reelection rate, which is
usually in the high 90 percentile, was 73 percent in 2002 and
still below 90 percent in 2004. He stated, "We do know that
there are fewer uncontested ... primary races since Clean
Elections, and that a number of incumbents have ... lost in
primary challenges by Clean Elections-funded opponents."
12:35:27 PM
VICE CHAIR ROSES asked for historical data regarding which party
held the majority prior to the Clean Elections Act compared to
today.
MR. EHST replied that Arizona is a "fairly Republican state,"
and the majority has been held by the Republican Party since the
1960s, with the exception of one year in the early 1990s when
the Democrat Party "took the state senate." The Republican
majority still exists today in Arizona. He offered further
details.
12:37:02 PM
MR. EHST, in response to a question from Representative Johnson,
explained that the funding of Clean Elections in Arizona is
fairly unique, in that the primary funding mechanism, from which
more than 60 percent of the money comes, is sourced from a 10
percent surcharge on all criminal and civil fines. The system
generates a surplus of money that is then transferred to
Arizona's general fund, which is currently being applied to the
state's record budget deficit. He told the committee that
[Clean Elections] is not a taxpayer funded system.
12:38:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON responded that he would hate to see a
situation where the State of Alaska promoted crime to fund
elections. He offered his understanding that SSHB 261 proposes
that the Clean Elections would be funded publicly from the state
treasury.
MR. EHST, in response to a follow-up question from
Representative Johnson, related that Maine's Clean Elections are
financed through legislative appropriation, and the state is
considering reducing the financing available to candidates,
because of budget cuts. Connecticut just passed [a Clean
Elections Act] by legislative action and will begin the system
with its upcoming election, funding it through legislative
appropriation. The pilot program for legislative seats in New
Jersey is funded by legislative appropriation. Arizona is a
financially conservative state, thus, it set up a system that
would be self-funding. He stated, "While we ... certainly don't
condone law breaking, there are plenty of speeders in the state
to keep us flush."
MR. EHST, in response to Representative Johnson, confirmed that
it is his contention that [a Clean Elections system] has
increased the number of candidates in Arizona. He clarified
that although he works with activists and groups nationwide, his
organization, whose mission is to monitor the implementation of
the Clean Elections Act, is specific to Arizona. He said it is
difficult to report the exact number of candidates, because the
number varies widely by election. He reiterated that there were
a record number of candidates in 2000-2002 because of the term
limits and redistricting. He proffered that there were
approximately 20 percent more legislative candidates in 2006
than in 1998, "which was a similar election."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said, "Our fiscal note is based upon an
election that happens, so I'm wondering if we can add 20 percent
to the fiscal note on this."
12:42:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it is easy to say that since "B"
follows "A," therefore "A" caused "B," for example, but that is
not always true, unless the situation is completely controlled
and there is a causal connection shown, with no extraneous
factors that could have caused the result.
MR. EHST said he certainly understands and agrees with that.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said in this instance it sounds like
there were at least two other factors that kicked in: term
limits and redistricting. He asked Mr. Ehst if he could prove
that "those two results were due to Clean Elections and not
other factors."
MR. EHST responded that without a scientifically pure study, it
is not possible to absolutely prove one thing or another;
however, he said there was definitely an effect in the 2000-2002
elections, particularly, of term limits and redistricting. He
said, of course, redistricting happens every 10 years. He
continued:
We had, in those elections, ... fewer incumbents
running for reelection. ... Because we are past the
point where term limits took out a large number of
incumbents at one time, we have now returned to the
point where the number of incumbents running for
office is essentially the same as it was before Clean
Elections. The redistricting changes have now, since
2002, been worked out of the system. ...
I certainly will agree that the 2000 and 2002
elections were anomalous for those reasons, which is
why, when I go back and compare 2004 and 2006, back to
1996 and 1998, we can say - and I can't, again, prove
absolutely - that Clean Elections is ... at least the
sole cause for this, but we can say that: voter
turnout is up; the number of candidates is up; the
number of contested races is up; the races are closer
than they used to be. ... The other influencing
factors have had a chance to work their way out of the
system since then.
MR. EHST, in response to Representative Gruenberg, reviewed that
the term limits went into effect with the 2000 election. The
term limits are four consecutive two-year terms for the
legislature.
12:46:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he presumes that in the '90s there
were no term limits, while now there are. He asked, "Might that
not have also had the effect of what you're saying?"
MR. EHST clarified that when term limits first went into affect,
there were a large number of legislators who were "term-limited"
and had to leave office. Since then, the number of legislative
incumbents running for reelections has rebounded to be
essentially the same when comparing the election years 2006 with
1998, for example. He concluded, "So, while we didn't have term
limits in the '90s, it isn't really now affecting the number of
legislators running for reelections any more than just the
natural number of people leaving office did in the 1990s."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that the first group of
legislators elected under the new term limits have yet to
complete their potential full term.
MR. EHST clarified that starting in 2000, the term limits were
effective for anyone who had served eight years, and a number of
legislators were "termed out" in the years 2000 and 2002 and had
to leave office, which created a large number of open seats in
those years. Since then, he said, the number of legislators who
are termed out does not appear to be changing the number of
incumbents running for reelection any more than natural
attrition did before term limits.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained his point is that it is too
soon to tell. It will be necessary to see the data from the
next two elections.
MR. EHST concurred. He continued:
The data that I have, as I said, shows a large
turnover in those two years that is, at least for the
present, rebounded to the point where the number of
incumbents running for reelection is essentially the
same as it was in the 1990s, prior to term limits.
And I don't think that the data from 2008, from what
I've seen so far, looks like it's going to be
significantly different than that.
12:50:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated, "Incumbency can breed
gentrification and unwillingness to change and keep a
legislature in tune with the times." He mentioned term limits,
redistricting, Clean Elections, and Alaska's 90-day session and
said they all "express and proceed from a general public
distrust of the legislature." He said the Institute of
Governmental Affairs (IGA), in California, is a think tank
connected with the Political Science Department at California
State University Berkley that has studied the effect of term
limits in California and the effect on the balance of power.
Representative Gruenberg stated his belief that there is a value
in incumbency, "because a strong legislature is important for a
good balance of power and to ensure that the people are
represented properly." He asked Mr. Ehst to comment regarding
whether or not part of the Clean Elections proposal is to get a
greater turnover in the legislature, and whether there may be
problems in doing so from a systemic, institutional, or
constitutional point of view.
MR. EHST said he is not testifying as an advocate of term
limits, and the purpose of Clean Elections is not to force
incumbents out of office. He named the two primary purposes of
Clean Elections: to reduce the influence of special interest
money in the process of selecting elected officials; and to
increase competition by giving more candidates the financial
means to run for office. The incumbent reelection rate is not
really a good measure of whether or not "Clean Elections is
doing its job." Good measures include the number of candidates
and whether or not voters are responding.
12:55:18 PM
VICE CHAIR ROSES referred to the findings in the bill and cited
the first sentence, [on page 1, lines 6-8], which read as
follows:
The legislature finds that providing a voluntary
public financing system for all primary and general
state elections would enhance democracy in the state
in the following principle ways:
VICE CHAIR ROSES highlighted one of those ways, [on page 1,
subsection (1), lines 9-11], which read as follows:
(1) it would affirm the principle of "one person,
one vote," reduce the disproportionate and deleterious
influence of large contributors, and restore the
rights of citizens of all backgrounds to equal and
meaningful participation in the democratic process;
VICE CHAIR ROSES highlighted another of the ways public
financing would enhance democracy, as written in the bill [on
page 2, subsection (4), lines 1-3], which read as follows:
(4) it would diminish the public perception of
corruption, strengthen public confidence in democratic
institutions and processes, and eliminate the danger
of corruption caused by the private financing of
election campaigns;
VICE CHAIR ROSES asked Mr. Ehst if he agrees with those
findings.
MR. EHST responded that that is the goal, "to eliminate that
influence - ... whether it's subconscious or not - on the
system."
VICE CHAIR ROSES asked Mr. Ehst if his group has conducted any
surveys to ascertain whether or not the public feels that [Clean
Elections] has "indeed accomplished that objective."
MR. EHST replied that his group has not, but the state
commission that runs the program has. He said he did not bring
that report with him. He said the commission conducts an annual
survey of registered voters through a well-established,
nonpartisan survey organization.
VICE CHAIR ROSES mentioned a United States General Accounting
Office Report to the Congressional Committees on Campaign
Finance Reform - a report regarding publicly funded elections.
In it, 2002 survey results show that when asked if Clean
Elections increased their confidence in the public process, 8
percent of those surveyed in Maine and 15 percent of those
surveyed in Arizona answered yes.
VICE CHAIR ROSES asked Mr. Ehst if he finds those statistics
surprising.
MR. EHST responded that he does not find the public perception
surprising considering that when that survey was done in 2002,
there had been one election conducted in both Maine and Arizona,
and in Arizona, only about 25 percent of the candidates used the
system. There was very little experience with the system at
that point. He said quantitative effect on public policy is
difficult to prove, because it is hard to track how taking
special interest money out of the campaign process actually
affects legislation.
VICE CHAIR ROSES next read a quote from the 2007 Maine
Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices - a
report on Maine's Clean Elections Act - as follows:
Candidates are quite critical of the growth in
independent expenditures made by political action
committees and political parties. It is important to
remember that the public funding cannot be a panacea
for all ills of the electoral system.
VICE CHAIR ROSES noted that the commission reports it saw no
change in the public's confidence related to big money influence
as a result of Maine's Clean Election Act. He asked Mr. Ehst if
he finds that surprising.
MR. EHST answered no. He said independent expenditures are a
free speech issue and occur in all campaigns, whether or not the
candidates are publicly financed. Furthermore, the amount of
independent expenditures is rising exponentially across the
country in races everywhere. He remarked that Clean Elections
provides candidates who run "using the system" with additional
funds to level the playing field, if they are the targets of
independent expenditures.
VICE CHAIR ROSES said he appreciates that and is not trying to
be argumentative. He explained:
When someone states that the main purpose of the bill
is to accomplish those two objectives, and we have two
reports that actually clearly state from surveys that
were done that it indeed did not accomplish those
objectives - and one being from 2007, it gives me a
little bit of pause as to whether or not we're going
to have that same opportunity in this state to claim
that it's going to make that kind of a change when
history shows in the other states that it didn't.
1:02:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked what the contribution levels and
limits in Arizona were prior to the adoption of its Clean
Elections Act.
MR. EHST responded that Arizona has some of the lowest
individual contribution limits in the country, put in place by
citizen initiative in the 1980s, with built-in inflationary
factors. He noted that in 2008, the amount of money that a
legislative candidate can take from any individual is $390. He
related that there is no limit on the aggregate amount that a
candidate can collect or spend on his/her campaign, but the
limits apply to contributions from individuals and PACs.
Arizona does not allow any corporate or business contributions
to candidates. In response to Representative Johnson, he said
the contribution limit for a "normal" PAC is the same as for an
individual, but offered his understanding that "super" PACs can
give about $1,700. He noted also that Arizona has a limit on
the amount of contributions that a candidate can collect in
aggregate from PACs.
1:05:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked Mr. Ehst to talk about third-party
expenditures.
MR. EHST responded:
If you had asked me in 2002 or 2004, I would have said
independent expenditures were going down because of
Clean Elections, because ... committees knew that if
they made these expenditures targeting Clean Elections
candidates, ... the Clean Elections candidates would
get matching funds. In 2006, it appears that they
rebounded it, at least to some extent, but I can't
quantify it. ... We don't have a reporting system
that ... allows us to know how much in aggregate there
are in independent expenditures ... or in what races
they're made. The only ... place where we could see
it would be to look at the ... actual matching funds
given to Clean Elections candidates.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if the increase in voter turnout,
previously noted by Mr. Ehst, had been "adjusted for
population."
MR. EHST answered yes. He clarified, "When I say, 'increase in
voter turnout,' I'm not speaking in ... broad numbers of voters
turning out, although that has increased rapidly." He stated
that under both the percentage of registered voters and the
number of people eligible to vote, the voter turnout has
increased significantly in "like elections." In response to a
follow-up question from Representative Johnson, he reported that
the official voter turnout number for Arizona's 2006 general
election was 60.47 percent - the highest since 1982. That
number, in 1998, the last election before the Clean Elections
Act was adopted, was 46 percent.
1:08:58 PM
VICE CHAIR ROSES asked if there were any "hot topic" issues that
were on the ballot then. He relayed, for example, that any
ballot issue having to do with the permanent fund dividend would
bring increased numbers of voters.
MR. EHST responded that Arizona has a large number of ballot
measures on the ballot in every election. He reiterated his
comments regarding the steady rise of voter activity since the
adoption of the Clean Elections Act.
1:10:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recollected that Arizona is part of the
Sun Belt and Baby Boomers turning 61, and others are moving to
Arizona in increasing numbers. He asked if that may be one
reason that the numbers are increasing. He noted that seniors
tend to vote more.
MR. EHST said he cannot answer that question in quantitative
terms. Notwithstanding that, he said Arizona has been part of
the Sun Belt for many years now. He said he does not believe
that the state's population is significantly older now than it
was in 1998. He said Arizona also has a lot of young people
moving to the state, as well.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if any studies have been
conducted to determine whether people who move to the sun belt
tend to vote more than the people who are already there, perhaps
because they may be more upwardly mobile or more inclined to be
civically involved.
MR. EHST said he doesn't know that such a study has been done.
He noted that Latinos are rapidly becoming an increasingly
larger part of Arizona's population, and national statistics
show that that group tends to vote in lower numbers than the
rest of the population. In response to a follow-up question
from Representative Gruenberg, he explained that Arizona has a
few majority/minority districts where Latinos and Native
Americans are concentrated, and the number of Latino candidates
and voters has not increased significantly after the adoption of
the Clean Elections Act.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said because of the "Motor Voter Act,"
over the past 10-15 years there have been a lot of names that
have not been accurate on voter rolls. He asked Mr. Ehst if
Arizona has taken steps to "cleanse that roll," which would
increase the percentage of voters by lowering the denominator
when the out-of-date names are removed from the list.
MR. EHST confirmed that the state has done so, to some extent,
several times over the course of time. However, he said that
has not changed the number of voters on the rolls enough to
change the trend in voting. He said George Mason University
conducts a good academic study nationwide of voter turnout, and
that data - using the definition of voting eligible population,
which is not related to how money people are actually on the
voter rolls but by using census data to determine how many
people in the state actually could vote - shows that voter
turnout in Arizona has been rising steadily, as well.
1:18:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled that it is Mr. Ehst's opinion
that Clean Elections increases the number of candidates that run
for office, but others argue that it does not. He stated that
if there is an increase, then the fiscal note is wrong. He
added, "And if it doesn't increase the number of candidates,
then that is an argument that we should be making, in terms of
participation on this bill."
1:19:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG described a loophole regarding
fundraising. He suggested that ratcheting down spending may
favor incumbents more, because their challengers could not raise
the money to get the publicity to get the incumbents out of
office. If the challenger feels the only way to get a message
out is by not going after public funding, the situation becomes
worse, "because then the public funds the incumbent's race
entirely," he said.
MR. EHST said he is not sure he understands the question.
Notwithstanding that, he said adopting a public financing system
does not prevent any candidate from raising funding the
traditional way, and allowing candidates to qualify for public
financing does not decrease the amount of money that any
candidate is getting.
1:20:53 PM
VICE CHAIR ROSES explained that Representative Gruenberg had
been referring to SSHB 261, which proposes a limitation on
expenditure, which may not be the case in Arizona.
MR. EHST offered his understanding that in every state that
offers public financing, the candidate who receives it signs a
contract that promises he/she will not spend any more money than
he/she gets from the public fund. He continued:
Now, that goes back to the setting of the amount that
a candidate receives to run for office. It has to be
a fair amount to run a campaign. And also, you have
the matching funds or equalizing funds, that if they
are out-spent by an opponent or if there is an
independent expenditure working against them, they get
extra money to make up for that. There is a limit on
that, otherwise you could potentially break the bank.
... What we have seen in Arizona is that [in] 90-95
percent of the races, ... the expenditures for all
candidates fall within the amount of funding that a
Clean Elections candidate gets from the system -
either the initial funding that they get or the
additional matching funds that they get.
MR. EHST said there have been a few instances where there has
been a candidate who has gone out and raised a huge amount of
money, far surpassing the Clean Elections spending or matching
funds limit, thereby outspending his/her opponent. He offered
details of just such an occurrence in Arizona's 2006 election.
He said he has spoken with several candidates who have told him
losing in that manner was okay, because without the Clean
Elections public funding, they never would have been in the race
in the first place. He said the system cannot make up for that
kind of funding, and no system ever will.
1:24:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON described a hypothetical scenario in
which one party ran an advertisement that promoted its own party
and put down another. He asked if that would qualify every
candidate in the other party for matching funds.
MR. EHST answered not necessarily. He said, "That's one of the
things that we have wrestled with in refining the system." He
said there is an exception built into Arizona law that allows
political parties to make expenditures for "slate cards" which
list a particular party's candidates. He stated:
Both parties have ... tried to make end runs around
the Clean Elections law by producing slick, 12-page
mailers that are all about a particular candidate and
why this particular candidate is wonderful. And on
the back page, in 10-point type, it lists two other
candidates' names.
... We have now put into the Clean Elections
administrative rules a very tight definition of what
fits into that exception, and candidates do get
matching funds for political party expenditures that
... do blatantly either support one of their opponents
or attack them.
VICE CHAIR ROSES told Mr. Ehst that he has represented the issue
well.
1:28:29 PM
TIM JUNE, Chair, Alaskans for Clean Elections, said Alaskans for
Clean Elections is the group forwarding the Clean Elections
Initiative. He said Alaskans for Clean Elections adopted an
number of the recommendations in Maine's 2007 report. The
initiative proposes that any group spending more than $500 would
have to report to the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
and state whether the expenditure was either for or against a
particular candidate. There would be an appeal process, in case
a candidate disagrees that the independent expenditure was
"either for or against them."
MR. JUNE, in response to Representative Johnson's comments about
the need to increase the fiscal note, said he thinks the fiscal
note was based on Maine's Clean Elections Act specifically. He
said the system requires three or four election cycles "to
really come into its own." In Maine, the first election cycle
showed about 33 percent participation, by the second cycle it
increased to 67 percent, and by the third cycle, the number grew
to about 81 percent candidate participation in Clean Elections.
MR. JUNE, in response to a comment by Representative Gruenberg
regarding the level of spending in political races, said he does
not have any hard facts and figures, but thinks it could be
agreed upon that in terms of a typical election cycle in Alaska,
out of the 50 legislative races in each cycle, there are
probably only eight to ten of those that are truly competitive
when comparing dollar-for-dollar expenditure. He said Clean
Elections brings out the opportunity for candidates to use Clean
Elections funding. He predicted there would be more competitive
races. He echoed Mr. Ehst's statement that the point of Clean
Elections is not to replace incumbents, but to give whoever
wins, if they are able to use the Clean Elections system, "a
somewhat arm's-length distance, in terms of not having special
interest influence or the influence of private donors."
1:32:22 PM
MR. JUNE referred to page 23 of chapter 3 of the Maine 2007
report, which he related shows that because of Maine's Clean
Elections Act, the total amount of private contributions
received by legislative candidates has fallen sharply, by nearly
77 percent. Furthermore, the report shows that in survey
responses to the commission, a significant number of candidates
and legislators have stated their belief that campaign
contributions have some expectation of access and influence.
1:33:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said there are and have been candidates
that have businesses that advertise locally or statewide on
television. He remarked, "It's like a 24/7 presence of that
candidate for publicity's sake." He said sometimes the
candidates are incumbents and sometimes they are challengers,
but "this becomes tax deductible because it's a business
expense." He said, "So, business finances this publicity and so
does the federal government, in the sense that it's a tax
deduction." He observed that those activities are not at all
covered under SSHB 261 or under current law, and there are some
potential constitutional issues there. He asked Mr. June how
the legislature should deal with that, because it seems to him
that those individuals have a tremendous advantage over
everybody else.
MR. JUNE said he agrees. Although constitutionally the state
cannot control what a private individual does with private
finances for advertising, some states have created a law so that
no seated legislator can have his/her picture in any literature
put out to constituents if that literature is paid for with
state money. He said there are mechanisms to control that
situation and that some states are using to minimize the
incumbent's advantage. He concluded, "But in terms of private
funds, I don't have an answer for you Representative Gruenberg."
1:36:01 PM
VICE CHAIR ROSES announced that SSHB 261 was heard and held.
1:36:16 PM
VICE CHAIR ROSES announced the upcoming House State Affairs
Standing Committee calendar and gave notice of Senator Lisa
Murkowski's upcoming appearance.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG talked about information he had
received from Senator Murkowski.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
1:37:47 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|