02/01/2022 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB245 | |
| HB234 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 245 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 234 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 1, 2022
3:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Matt Claman, Vice Chair
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Andi Story
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative James Kaufman
Representative David Eastman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 245
"An Act relating to political contribution limits; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 234
"An Act relating to political contributions; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 245
SHORT TITLE: POLITICAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOSEPHSON
01/18/22 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/22
01/18/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/22 (H) STA
02/01/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 234
SHORT TITLE: POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SCHRAGE
01/18/22 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/22
01/18/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/22 (H) STA
02/01/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 245, as the prime sponsor.
MAX KOHN, Staff
Representative Andy Josephson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"Campaign Contribution Limits," on behalf of Representative
Josephson, prime sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 234, as the prime sponsor.
ERIK GUNDERSON, Staff
Representative Calvin Schrage
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"HB 234 Political Contribution Limits," on behalf of
Representative Schrage, prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:04:52 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:04 p.m.
Representatives Story, Vance, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins were
present at the call to order. Representatives Eastman, Tarr,
and Kaufman arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 245-POLITICAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
3:06:55 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 245, "An Act relating to political
contribution limits; and providing for an effective date."
3:07:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, introduced HB 245. He paraphrased the sponsor
statement [included in the committee packet], which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
HB 245 restores reasonable and common-sense limits on
how much money individuals and groups can contribute
to political candidates in State elections. Alaskans
have repeatedly shown a preference for low limits on
contributions to candidate, and in the absence of HB
245, or similar legislation, contributions may become
limitless in upcoming elections. Campaign
contributions are one of the most obvious ways that
wealthy individuals and corporations try to corrupt
politicians to serve their interests rather than the
interests of all Alaskans. Alaska has historically
recognized this risk in campaign contributions and
since 1973 has restricted how much individuals can
donate to politicians.
Between 2006 and 2021, Alaska Statutes placed that
limits at $500 over the course of a calendar year. In
2021, however, the United Stated Court of Appeals for
th
the 9 Circuit ruled that limit unconstitutional. The
Court argued that because $500 was unusually low,
applied to all state races, and was not indexed wit
inflation to grow over time, that it infringed on
donors freedom of speech and gave and unfair
advantage to incumbents. In the aftermath of the
decision, Alaskas Public Office Commission set the
individual-to-candidate limit at $1,500. The people of
Alaska must have a say on what the limit is, and new
legislation is required unless we risk no limit at
all.
HB 245 addresses the courts concerns by repealing AS
15.13.070(c) and replacing it with new language. The
original $500 limit passed by 71% approval among
voters in 2006 is closer to $700 in todays dollars.
HB 245 uses that adjustment as the new limit on
candidates to the State House. Limits on individuals
rise accordingly to $1,000 for candidates to the
Senate, and $1,500 to candidates for Governor. The new
law satisfies the Courts constitutionality test by
adjusting for inflation and differentiating the limits
for different levels of public office.
In addition to restoring common-sense limits on how
much money someone can give to a political candidate,
HB 245 restores an urgently needed limit on how much
candidates can raise from out-of-state contributors.
Alaskans are highly attuned to the threat of
corruption in our state politics. Out-of-state
interests sometimes compete with Alaskan interests and
the will of the voters. In order to both satisfy the
Courts decision that the old non-resident limit was
unconstitutional and fight the appearance of
corruption in our elections, HB 245 would limit
candidates to raising no more than 50% of their money
from out-of-state. I urge your support to bring these
reforms to Alaska.
3:15:18 PM
MAX KOHN, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Josephson, prime
sponsor, provided a PowerPoint presentation, titled "Campaign
Contribution Limits" [hard copy included in the committee
packet]. He began with the sectional analysis on slide 2, which
outlined Section 1 of HB 245: contribution limits on
individuals. He said Section 1 follows the original framework
th
that was struck down by the 9 Circuit Court of Appeals.
Instead of a flat $500 limit on individuals, HB 245 provides
that an individual can give $700 to a House candidate, $1,000 to
a Senate candidate, $1,500 to a candidate for governor, $1,000
to groups or PACs that give directly to candidates, and $5,000
to political parties.
3:16:54 PM
MR. KOHN turned to slide 3, which outlined Section 2 of HB 245:
Limits on groups that are not political parties. He indicated
that Section 2 doubles the contributions limits outlined in
section 1; therefore, a group could give $1,400 to a House
candidate, $2,000 to a Senate candidate, $3,000 to a candidate
for governor, $2,000 to groups, and $10,000 to political
parties.
3:17:44 PM
MR. KOHN continued to Section 4 (slide 4): Joint campaigns for
governor and lieutenant governor. He explained that an
individual could give $3,000 to a joint campaign, while a group
could give $6,000. Section 5, he said, pertains to indexing for
inflation and Section 6 limits nonresident contributions to 50
percent of a candidates total contributions during the campaign
(slide 5). He said the rationale for the 50 percent limit came
from Ballot Measure 2 [2020], which requires an independent
expenditure to publicly disclose financial information if they
raise more than 50 percent of their money from out of state.
3:19:51 PM
MR. KOHN highlighted the goal of HB 245 on slide 6 as follows:
To maintain the spirit of previous law and Alaskans preferences
as closely as possible while staying in the confines of the
Constitution. Combat corruption and the appearance of
corruption in our elections. He advanced to slide 7, titled
History of Campaign Contribution Limits in Alaska, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
1974: AK Leg passes $1,000 contribution limit. 1996:
Legislature lowers the limit to $500 to pre-empt a
ballot initiative.
2003: Legislature raises the limit back to $1,000.
2006: Ballot initiative passes with 73% support for
limit to be lowered back to $500.
2021: Thompson v. Hebdon9thCircuit finds Alaska's
$500 limit unconstitutional and APOC reverts to $1,000
+ inflation = $1,500.
MR. KOHN proceeded to slide 8, which depicted a timeline of
the legislative history. Slide 9 provided the historical
limits in todays dollars. He pointed out that the limit
of $1,000 that was passed in 1974 is equivalent to $5,900
in todays dollars; further, he highlighted the 2006 limit
of $500, which was passed by a citizens ballot initiative,
indicating that it would equate to about $697 after
indexing for inflation.
3:21:12 PM
MR. KOHN summarized slides 10-13, noting the difficulty of
comparing contribution limits by state, as the structure
typically differs. He pointed out that Montanas law was also
th
challenged and ended up in the 9 Circuit Court of Appeals. He
conveyed that the limits displayed for Montana on slide 13 were
th
upheld by the 9 Circuit using the same test they applied to
Alaska. He emphasized that the contribution limits proposed in
HB 245 would not be radical compared to other states.
3:24:06 PM
MR. KOHN summarized slide 14, titled Alaskans prefer low
limits, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
There have been two ballot initiatives to lower
limits and reduce nonresident influence over Alaskan
elections.
The 1995 initiative quickly gained 32,000
signatures and put pressure on the legislature to pass
a similar bill.
The Anchorage Daily News published this quote
at the time:
"VECO's Pete Leathardsaid he fears the
initiative might diminish the industry's influence."
The 2006 Ballot Initiative went to the ballot and
passed with 71% of voters approving the measure.
3:24:57 PM
MR. KOHN reviewed APOC disclosures in the 2018 governors race
to independent expenditures on slide 15. He noted that prior to
Ballot Measure 2 [2020], independent expenditures were not
regulated and could accept money from anywhere in the country.
He reported that in 2018, 71 percent of the funding came from
out-of-state residents totaling nearly $5 million, whereas 29
percent came from Alaska residents. He noted that Ballot
Measure 2 addressed this problem, adding that per the Courts,
the legislature has less power to regulate independent
expenditures than it does with contributions directly to
candidates. Without HB 245, he said, independent expenditures
would be regulated more than direct contributions to candidates
due to the 50 percent disclosure requirement.
3:26:39 PM
MR. KOHN addressed constitutionality on slide 16, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
? HB 245 passes contribution limit tests laid out in
Randall v. Sorrell.
? The previous $3,000 aggregate nonresident limit was
found unconstitutional. The judge's opinion in the
case also noted "while we do not foreclose the
possibility that a state could limit out-of-state
contributions in furtherance of an anti-corruption
interest, Alaska's aggregate limit on what a candidate
may receive is a poor fit." (Thompson v. Hebdon)
MR. KOHN conveyed the bill sponsors beliefs that the
contribution limits are constitutional; further, despite the
Courts indication that the $3,000 aggregate limit is
unconstitutional, he noted that they have not tested a similar
law to the 50 percent requirement.
3:28:01 PM
MR. KOHN turned to slide 17, titled 9th Circuit Thompson v.
Hebdon, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
? The court considered five primary factors for the
contribution limit:
1. Does the limit "significantly restrict the amount
of funding available for challengers to run
competitive campaigns?" Yes
2. Are political parties subject to the same low
limits as individuals? No
3. Are volunteer services counted toward contribution
limits? No
4. Are the limits indexed for inflation? No
5. Is there a "special justification" for a uniquely
low limit? No
3:30:05 PM
MR. KOHN turned to slide 18, titled Constitutionality of this
Bill: Limits on Individuals, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
? 1. Does the limit "significantly restrict the amount
of funding available for challengers to run
competitive campaigns?" This factor is improved
? 2. Are political parties subject to the same low
limits as individuals? This factor was already
satisfactory
? 3. Are volunteer services counted toward
contribution limits? This factor was already
satisfactory
? 4. The limits are now indexed for inflation. This
factor is improved
? 5. The limit is no longer uniquely low. This factor
is improved
3:31:06 PM
MR. KOHN concluded on slide 19, titled Empirical Evidence,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
? Empirical studies have found links between large
contributions and public trust in government.
? One study found that "a large majority of Americans
believe that the campaign finance system contributes
to corruption in government."
? Perceptions of Corruption and Campaign Finance: When
Public Opinion Determines Constitutional Law, 153 U.
Pa. Law Review 119, 120 (2004)
Another found that "members' dependency on outside
contributions draws them in a more extremely liberal
or extremely conservative ideological direction that
is counter to the ideological preferences of the
districts they represent."
? Getting Short-Changed? The Impact of Outside Money
on District Representation, 97 Social Science
Quarterly
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited additional comments from
Representative Josephson.
3:31:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON, referencing a provision in [SB 155]
sponsored by Senator Wielechowski, suggested that the governor
should not be allowed to solicit and receive contributions
during a legislative session. He indicated that he would
welcome such an amendment should the committee propose one.
3:32:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR agreed with the undue influence of
contributions. She expressed concern about the impact of
raising the out-of-state contribution limit to 50 percent for a
House raise and inquired about the rationale behind that
provision.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON agreed with her concern. He explained
that the intent is to show deference to the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals, as the Court had been opposed to the $3,000 limit. He
opined that that its un-Alaskan if more than 50 percent of a
candidates contributions are coming from out of state.
3:34:25 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 245 was held over.
3:34:33 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
HB 234-POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
3:35:50 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 234, "An Act relating to political
contributions; and providing for an effective date."
3:36:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor,
introduced HB 234.
3:36:29 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
3:36:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 234, labeled 32-LS119\I, Bullard,
1/22/22, as the working document.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:37:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE presented the sponsor statement [included
in the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
House Bill 234 updates Alaska's political donations
limits and requires the Alaska Public Offices
Commission to increase these limits every ten years
based on Alaska's consumer inflation rates.
th
Last year, the 9 Circuit Court of Appeals struck down
the statutory campaign finance contribution limits in
the Thompson vs Hebdon decision. Alaska has long
touted strong and effective campaign finance laws and
regulations which have helped to reduce perception and
acts of quid pro quo and corruption in our electoral
process. These regulations have served to promote
better accountability and trust in our election system
and elected officials.
This ruling created legal uncertainty over political
contribution limits which have not been updated since
the 2006 citizen's initiative. HB 234 seeks to bring
the newly struck down contribution limit laws into
th
compliance with the ruling of the 9 Circuit Court of
Appeals and ensure limits moving forward are in line
with this ruling.
To accomplish this, HB 234 would double the current
statutory contribution limits made to group entities,
non-group entities, and candidates who seek to
influence state or local elections. For example, a
candidate could now accept $1,000 per calendar year
from an individual as opposed to the existing
statutory $500 individual contribution limit struck
th
down by the 9 Circuit Court of Appeals.
HB 234 directs the Alaska Public Office Commission to
adjust all contribution limits for inflation every 10
years, rounding them to the nearest $50 increment.
This statutory change helps to ensure donation limits
remain in compliance with the Thompson v Hebdon
decision in perpetuity.
3:39:00 PM
ERIK GUNDERSON, Staff, Representative Calvin Schrage, Alaska
State Legislature, provided a PowerPoint presentation, titled
HB 234 Political Contribution Limits [hard copy included in
the committee packet], on behalf of Representative Schrage,
prime sponsor. He began on slides 2, titled History of
Alaskas political Contribution Limits, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
1974 to 1995
? Statutory individual contribution limit: $1,000
? 1975 Contribution limit adjusted for inflation:
$4,725
? 1995 Contribution limit adjusted for inflation:
$1,708
1996
? Citizens' Initiative reduced individual contribution
limit to $500
? 1996 Contribution limit adjusted for inflation: $831
2003
? Legislature passed SB 119, increasing the individual
contribution limits back to $1,000
? 2003 contribution limit adjusted to inflation:
$1,460
MR. GUNDERSON continued to summarize the history of Alaskas
political contribution limits on slide 3, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
2006 Alaska Campaign Finance Reform Initiative
? Passed overwhelmingly with 73% support
Decreased the amounts:
? an individual may give a candidate or group from
$1,000 to $500
? 2006 individual limit adjusted for inflation: $669
? an individual may give a political party from
$10,000 to $5,000
? a group may give a candidate or other group from
$2,000 to $1,000
? a group may give a political party from $4,000 to
$1,000
3:41:59 PM
MR. GUNDERSON glossed over slide 4 and continued to slide 5,
titled Thompson v. Hebdon (2019), which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Background:
? Plaintiffs sued challenging Alaska's political
contribution and out-of-state limits that an
individual can contribute to a candidate for political
office, or to an election-oriented group other than a
political party, as infringement under the First
Amendment.
? The District Court and Ninth Circuit initially
upheld the individual limits as a "sufficiently
important state interest" and "closely drawn" to that
end but ruled the out-of-state contribution limits
were unconstitutional.
? The U.S. Supreme Court remanded this decision back
to the Ninth Circuit to reconsider upholding Alaska's
contribution limits, citing Randall v. Sorrel (2006)
which ruled Vermont's $400 contribution limit
unconstitutional.
? The Ninth Circuit then struck down Alaska's
statutory political contribution limits citing that
they were too low and had not been adjusted for
inflation since initially implemented.
3:43:23 PM
MR. GUNDERSON advanced to slide 6, titled Where we are now,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
? The Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) has
issued an advisory opinion under AS 15.13.374 enforce
$1,500 individual and $3,000 no political party group
contribution limits.
? APOC advisory opinion limits are based on the 2003
legislative political contribution limits increased
for inflation.
? Uncertainty remains as to whether the contribution
limits enacted in APOC's advisory opinion are valid
and if they have the authority to set these limits.
These limits have yet to be adopted by APOC's five
commissioners and could be changed or rejected.
? The only way to ensure that contribution limits are
known and enforceable is for the Alaska Legislature to
act and implement statutory limits that will be upheld
by the court system.
3:44:30 PM
MR. GUNDERSON proceeded to slide 7, titled HB 234 Overview,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
? Brings Alaska's political contribution limits in
accordance with the Thompson v Hebdon (2019) decision
which struck down Alaska's existing statutory limits.
? Doubles existing statutory campaign contribution
limits with the exception of donations to political
parties (example: an individual could donate $1,000 to
a candidate instead of the statutory $500 limit).
? Requires the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
to update political contribution limits every ten
years based on inflation, rounded to the nearest $50
increment.
MR. GUNDERSON briefly addressed slide 8, which provided a
comparison of the statutory limits, the APOC advisory opinion,
and the limits proposed in HB 234. He noted that the limits
outlined in HB 234 would fall in in between the statutory limits
and the APOC advisory opinion.
3:45:35 PM
MR. GUNDERSON presented the sectional analysis of HB 234
beginning on slide 9, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 1
Amends AS 15.13.070(b) to change the limit an
individual may contribute per year to a non-group
entity with the purpose of influencing an election,
candidate, write-in candidate, or group that is not a
political party from $500 to $1,000.
Section 2
Amends AS 15.13.070(c) to change the limit a non-
political party group may contribute per year to a
candidate, write-in candidate, another group, non-
group entity, or political party from $1,000 to
$2,000.
Section 3
Amends AS 15.13.070(f) to change the limit a nongroup
entity may contribute per year to another nongroup
entity for the purpose of influencing an election,
candidate, write-in candidate, group, or political
party from $1,000 to $2,000.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS interjected and proposed skipping the
sectional due to time constraints. He invited questions from
the committee.
3:46:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN recalled that when considering the per-
person contribution limit, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
mentioned findings that the limit specifically relates to
reasonable legislative objectives, which allows for limiting the
speech that the contributions constitute. He asked how the
proposed limits would meet a reasonable basis for contributions.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE recalled that the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals decision had communicated that the only legitimate
reason to curtail freedom of speech through political
contributions is in the interest of anti-corruption to avoid the
appearance or actuality of quid-pro-quo transactions or
dealings. He said the amount of money in campaigns makes him
uncomfortable; however, Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission created a new landscape wherein limitations on free
speech must be made cautiously. He added that the limits
proposed in HB 234 were selected in an attempt to balance the
citizens expressed interest with the ruling of the Courts.
3:48:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed out that in 1974, the Alaska State
Legislature passed a law that implemented a limit of $1,000 to
counter corruption, which was later changed to $500 by a
citizens' initiative and then raised back to $1,000 by the
legislature based on zero legislative findings of corruption.
He said he had been troubled by the reference to 2003, when in
reality, the legislature applied the limit of 1,000 in 1974,
which after adjusting for inflation, is not even close to
$1,000. He expressed his concern that none of the laws were
passed with reasonable findings of corruption and therefore,
there wasnt a need for those particular limits.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE believed that Representative Claman had
outlined a legitimate concern; however, he opined that
legislators are accountable to the voters who expressed interest
in a much lower limit. He emphasized the need to take the
expressed will of the voters into account as new limits are set.
He pointed out that 1974 was a much different time, which makes
it difficult to draw a comparison. He reiterated that the
citizens of Alaska have expressed a strong interest in keeping
the limit low. He said his intent was to strike a delicate
balance between the expressed will of the voters and the Courts
ruling on a reasonable limitation on free speech.
3:51:01 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about the summary of changes in
the proposed CS, Version I.
3:51:34 PM
MR. GUNDERSON referenced a document titled, Summary of Changes
from A to I [included in the committee packet], which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
1. Section 5(i): p 2, line 18: remove "2023" and
insert "2032
2. Section 6: p 2, line 23: Remove Sec. 6.
3. Section 7: p 2, line 24: Section renamed
accordingly to Sec. 6.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE confirmed that Section 6 was removed to
avoid amending that section of statute; further, he noted that
the adjustment of dates is to align the bill with the
redistricting changes that occur every 10 years.
3:53:01 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to the adoption of
the proposed CS, Version I, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of a question
regarding Section 6. He sought to clarify whether the language
that was struck down by the court would be removed or left in
its current form.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE explained that the original form of the
bill had removed that language from statute. In Version I,
however, that removal is removed to keep the language in
statute; therefore, if further challenges to that language end
up in litigation, further clarification could be provided by the
Court.
3:53:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Version I was adopted.
3:54:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN considered a scenario in which inflation
rose into the double digits resulting in overly restrictive
contribution limits. He asked the bill sponsor to speak on the
potential of that.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE acknowledged Representative Kaufmans
consideration as a valid concern. He believed it illustrated
yet another reason to consider a slightly higher limit; further,
he opined that a limit of $1,000 for individual-to-candidate
contributions would leave enough ceiling to remain legally
defensible in a prolonged period of heightened inflation.
3:55:32 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the bill was held over.
3:56:15 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:56
p.m.