Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/18/2000 05:00 PM Senate 225
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON HB 225
April 18, 2000
5:00 p.m
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Harris
Representative Eric Croft
Senator Dave Donley, Co-Chair
Senator Mike Miller
Senator Lyman Hoffman
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 225
"An Act relating to election campaigns and legislative ethics;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 225
SHORT TITLE: CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND LEGISLATIVE ETHICS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
5/05/99 1180 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
5/05/99 1180 (H) JUD
5/06/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
5/06/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
5/06/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
5/06/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
5/07/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
5/07/99 (H) CSHB 225(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
5/07/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
5/07/99 1247 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING
5/08/99 1259 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 2DP 4NR
5/08/99 1260 (H) DP: JAMES, ROKEBERG; NR: CROFT,
5/08/99 1260 (H) MURKOWSKI, GREEN, KERTTULA
5/08/99 1260 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (H.JUD)
5/08/99 1271 (H) RULES TO CALENDAR 5/8/99
5/08/99 1271 (H) HELD TO 5/10 CALENDAR
5/10/99 1289 (H) READ THE SECOND TIME
5/10/99 1290 (H) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
5/10/99 1290 (H) AM NO 1 FAILED Y16 N23 A1
5/10/99 1291 (H) AM NO 2 FAILED Y16 N19 A5
5/10/99 1291 (H) AM NO 3 FAILED Y16 N20 A4
5/10/99 1292 (H) AM NO 4 FAILED Y18 N22
5/10/99 1293 (H) AM NO 5 FAILED Y17 N21 A2
5/10/99 1294 (H) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
5/10/99 1294 (H) READ THE THIRD TIME CSHB 225(JUD)
5/10/99 1294 (H) PASSED Y27 N12 A1
5/10/99 1294 (H) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
5/10/99 1295 (H) KERTTULA NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
5/11/99 1329 (H) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
5/11/99 1329 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
5/12/99 1385 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
5/12/99 1385 (S) JUD
5/14/99 (S) JUD AT 2:30 PM BELTZ 211
5/14/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
5/14/99 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
5/15/99 (S) JUD AT 12:00 PM BELTZ 211
5/15/99 (S) MOVED CS (JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
5/15/99 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
5/16/99 1514 (S) JUD RPT SCS 1DP 2NR SAME TITLE
5/16/99 1514 (S) NR: TAYLOR, HALFORD; DP: DONLEY
5/16/99 1514 (S) (H) ZERO FN (H.JUD)
5/17/99 (S) RLS AT 10:30 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
5/17/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
5/17/99 1565 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1DNP 5/17/99
5/17/99 1580 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
5/17/99 1580 (S) JUD SCS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
5/17/99 1580 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
5/17/99 1580 (S) AM NO 2 FAILED Y6 N14
5/17/99 1581 (S) AM NO 3 NOT OFFERED
5/17/99 1581 (S) AM NO 4 FAILED Y5 N15
5/17/99 1582 (S) AM NO 5 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
5/17/99 1582 (S) AM NO 6 FAILED Y5 N15
5/17/99 1583 (S) AM NO 7 ADOPTED Y12 N8
5/17/99 1584 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
5/17/99 1584 (S) READ THE 3RD TIME SCS CSHB 225(JUD)
AM S
5/17/99 1584 (S) PASSED Y14 N6
5/17/99 1585 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
5/17/99 1585 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
5/18/99 1610 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
5/18/99 1610 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 9 UNAN
CONSENT
5/18/99 1610 (S) AM NO 9 ADOPTED Y14 N4 A2
5/18/99 1614 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
5/18/99 1615 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 10 UNAN
CONSENT
5/18/99 1615 (S) AM NO 10 FAILED Y7 N13
5/18/99 1617 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
5/18/99 1617 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y14 N6
5/18/99 1618 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
5/18/99 1658 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) AS AMENDED
5/18/99 1590 (H) HELD UNDER UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5/18/99 1635 (H) RETAINED IN UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5/19/99 1672 (H) RETURN TO RULES COMMITTEE
4/10/00 (H) RLS AT 4:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/10/00 (H) Rls Cmte did not concur w/Sen
amendmts
4/10/00 (H) MINUTE(RLS)
4/10/00 2979 (H) RLS RPT 5 DO NOT CONCUR
4/10/00 2979 (H) DO NOT CONCUR: COWDERY, PHILLIPS,
4/10/00 2979 (H) GREEN, PORTER, BERKOWITZ
4/10/00 2979 (H) HELD UNDER UNFINISHED BUSINESS
4/10/00 2990 (H) FAILED CONCUR (S) AM N35 E3 A2
4/10/00 2991 (H) CONFERENCE COMMITTEE APPOINTED
4/10/00 2991 (H) *GREEN, HARRIS, CROFT
4/11/00 2973 (S) FAILED RECEDE (S) AM Y- N18 A2
4/11/00 2974 (S) CONFERENCE COMMITTEE APPOINTED
4/11/00 2974 (S) *DONLEY, MILLER, HOFFMAN
4/14/00 (H) 225 AT 4:30 PM BELTZ 211
4/14/00 (S) 225 AT 5:00 PM BELTZ 211
4/14/00 (H) MINUTES
4/18/00 Text (H) 225 AT 4:30 PM BELTZ 211
4/18/00 Text (H) -- Location Change --
4/18/00 Text (S) 225 AT 4:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
4/18/00 3228 (S) (S)LIMITED POWER FREE CONFERENCE
GRANTE
4/18/00 3263 (H) (H)LIMITED POWER FREE CONFERENCE
GRANTE
WITNESS REGISTER
BROOKE MILES, Regulation of Lobbying
Alaska Public Offices Commission
Department of Administration
PO Box 110222
Juneau, Alaska 99508-0222
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information in regard to HB 225 and
the current laws.
CHIP WAGONER, Republican National Committeeman
Chair, Legislative Committee
Republican National Committee
3294 Pioneer Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the limited exception
to the corporate ban and suggested increasing [the contribution
limit] to $5,000.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-2, SIDE A
HB 225-CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND LEGISLATIVE ETHICS
Number 0010
CO-CHAIR DONLEY reconvened the Conference Committee on HB 225
meeting at 5:00 p.m.; this meeting was recessed to the call of
the chairs on April 14, 2000. Members present upon reconvening
were Representatives Croft and Harris and Senators Donley, Miller
and Hoffman.
SENATOR MILLER moved that the committee adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS) labeled LS0931\Z, Kurtz, 4/15/00, as
the working document. There being no objection, version Z was
adopted.
CO-CHAIR DONLEY noted that the committee has received limited
free powers on what is now Section 5 in version Z. He also noted
that there are three amendments [in the committee packet]. Co-
Chair Donley informed the committee that the committee has
limited free powers for Sections 2, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 15 of version
Z.
Number 0154
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS moved that the committee adopt the
following amendment, which was subsequently labeled Amendment 1:
Page 3, lines 20-22:
Delete "sponsor a political party event within this
state by paying for advertising, food, hall rental, and other
actual costs associated with the event."
Insert "pay for advertising, food, hall rental, and
other actual costs of political party annual dinners, meetings,
conferences, and conventions."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT expressed the need for disclosure [of such a
contribution as specified in Section 5 of version Z]. He asked
Ms. Miles if this already has a disclosure requirement.
CO-CHAIR DONLEY indicated that parties already file all
contributions as well as all their income and outcome.
Number 0266
BROOKE MILES, Regulation of Lobbying, Alaska Public Offices
Commission, Department of Administration, stated that [the type
of contribution discussed in] Section 5 of version Z would
require disclosure. She indicated that the commission would have
concerns (indisc.). Upon reviewing Amendment 1, she said that
the commission's only other comment would be that the committee
may wish to consider a limit on the amount. She specified that
the limit would be $1,000 that a group can give to a group or
$5,000 that an individual can give to a party as those are the
current limits.
CO-CHAIR DONLEY asked if there was any objection to Amendment 1.
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 0364
SENATOR MILLER moved that the committee adopt Amendment 2, which
reads as follows:
Page 3, line 21, following "paying":
Insert "not more than $1,000"
CO-CHAIR DONLEY explained that Amendment 2 would say that the in-
kind amount that could [be contributed] towards the things that
have now been defined in Amendment 1 would be limited to $1,000.
He guessed that the limit should be $1,000 per year.
MS. MILES affirmed that [$1,000 per year] would be how the
commission would interpret that.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if that would be $1,000 per event.
CO-CHAIR DONLEY clarified that it would be $1,000 per year per
contributor. He reiterated Ms. Miles prior testimony that the
current limitation for individuals is $5,000 and for groups the
limitation is $1,000.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT surmised then that this would place them in
the organization category.
Number 0462
CHIP WAGONER, Republican National Committeeman; Chair,
Legislative Committee, Republican National Committee, noted that
[the Republican National Committee] supports this as well as full
disclosure of such a contribution. He explained that [the
Republican National Committee] is attempting to obtain a
Republican National Committee meeting in Alaska. Before there
was a ban on corporate funds, there was a Democratic National
Committee meeting in Alaska. He noted that these meetings are
expensive to put on and most provide participants with a bag that
includes pads of paper, pens, et cetera. In order to provide
such bags, the sponsors want to place advertising on the bag and
thus two or three advertisers would be necessary in order to
provide the bags to the participants of the conference.
Therefore, he believes the limited language is good, but he
suggested increasing [the contribution limit of groups] to $5,000
which would be the same as an individual could contribute. Mr.
Wagoner pointed out that [the language] specifies that these
contributions would go towards the actual costs associated with
the event; no money is going to the candidate or to the advocacy
of an election nor is money going towards the defeat of anyone or
anything. This was done in Wyoming, a state that also has a ban
on corporate contributions. The State of Wyoming was able to put
on the Western States Leadership Conference. Furthermore,
Wyoming didn't place a limitation in their statute. Of the 15
western states, Alaska is one of two states that has never been
able to host the Western States Leadership Conference.
Therefore, he reiterated support of this limited exception to the
corporate ban and he would suggest increasing [the contribution
limit] to $5,000.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked Co-Chair Donley why he chose the
$1,000 limit.
CO-CHAIR DONLEY explained that he choose the $1,000 limit because
that is the maximum that groups can contribute to the party now,
and furthermore it is the traditional amount that individuals can
contribute to candidates. This amount is also the maximum that
political action committees (PACs) can contribute to candidates.
He acknowledged that the $5,000 limitation also exists in statute
in regard to contributions to the party from individuals.
MR. WAGONER suggested that a compromise could be to allow
[contributions] of $1,000 for in-state events and $5,000 for
interstate events.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that he liked the $1,000 limit.
CO-CHAIR DONLEY commented that he believes HB 225 is turning into
a fair piece of legislation to which the $1,000 limit would be a
reasonable amount that also falls within the existing scheme. He
asked if there was any objection to Amendment 2. There being no
objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
CO-CHAIR DONLEY directed the committee's attention to the
remaining amendment, which would specify that in-kind
contributions from attorneys and accountants could also be made
to candidates or groups in addition to parties.
Number 0750
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS offered Amendment 3 for discussion
purposes. Amendment 3 reads as follows:
Page 8, line 17, following "provided to a":
Insert "candidate, group, or"
SENATOR MILLER objected. He explained that although he
originally argued for political parties, he noted that he has
some [sympathy] for groups. He believes that many arguments
could be posed for political parties versus [groups and
candidates]. He also believes that inserting other things runs
counter to public opinion and the political reality that exists.
It is much more defendable to keep political parties.
CO-CHAIR DONLEY agreed and related his belief that there is a
legitimate difference between a political party and candidates or
specific interest groups.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS withdrew Amendment 3. There being no
objection, Amendment 3 was withdrawn.
Number 0851
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if there would be any disclosure of
the amount of the professional legal [services]. He believes
that it makes sense not to cap it, however it may make sense for
[the public] to know how much is given. He asked Ms. Miles if
there would be any disclosure of the amount of [professional
legal or accounting] services given to the party under sub-
subparagraph (iv) of Section 5.
MS. MILES replied that the commission's stand is that there would
be no disclosure of the professional services that are provided
free to the party. However, under sub-subparagraph (v) mass
mailings would be disclosed as an expenditure on the party's
regular report, although that mass mailing may not be disclosed
as a contribution [on the candidate's report]. She specified
that sub-subparagraph (iv) would have no disclosure and thus the
public wouldn't know which attorneys are contributing [to which
campaigns].
CO-CHAIR DONLEY asked if Ms. Miles had any language for that
provision that the committee could review if the committee wanted
to [require] disclosure.
Number 0928
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated that there could be references to
the disclosure statutes. He explained that he believes
[disclosure of these professional legal and accounting services]
is important for the public to know. He pointed out that some of
the other categories such as those listed under sub-subparagraph
(i) and (iii) can't be estimated. However the professional
services that are provided [can be estimated] as these
professionals are accustomed to accounting for their services and
thus it would not be so onerous to provide a normal billing
without placing a cap.
SENATOR MILLER remarked that he didn't believe that to be
unreasonable.
CO-CHAIR DONLEY indicated agreement and related that it would be
appropriate to place the burden on the party to report this. He
agreed with Representative Croft that [this disclosure] could be
achieved simply [with reference to disclosure that occurs in
another section]. Furthermore, [Section 5] is one of the
sections for which the committee obtained limited free powers and
thus could do what is being discussed.
SENATOR HOFFMAN inquired as to the time frame that is being
contemplated; would this be reported in an annual report?
MS. MILES pointed out that parties file campaign disclosure
reports on the same schedule as candidates. She indicated that
if this disclosure were considered part of the disclosure
permitted with unlimited amounts, that would go far in protecting
the public's right to know.
Number 1020
CO-CHAIR DONLEY suggested that the committee could say that
conceptually it wanted to add language to the effect "that this
shall be disclosed by a party in the same way as they would
disclose a monetary contribution." In that case, all the regular
reporting periods would be captured. He agreed with
Representative Croft that this is only in reference to sub-
subparagraph (iv) of Section 5. This suggestion was determined
to be a motion to which there was no objection and thus this
conceptual notion will be incorporated into a new CS.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that only Sections 1 and 13 remain
controversial.
Number 1080
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved that the committee delete Sections 1
and 13.
SENATOR HOFFMAN inquired as to what happened with Section 6 in
version Z.
CO-CHAIR DONLEY explained that everything was eliminated except
the thank you [advertisements] and the deleted portion was
transferred to a new separate section on public office expense
term accounts (POET). Before there was a multi-purpose section,
which was confusing.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT specified that the [POET accounts] are now
found in Section 8 on page 6. Representative Croft returned to
his motion to delete Sections 1 and 13 and informed the committee
that he reviewed the statutes of both sections, which are general
authority sections. There could be a more comprehensive
[section] that discusses the different interests served by the
campaign laws; however, he expressed concern that there is not
enough time to do so now. Representative Croft noted that both
sections emphasize that the burden is on "us", which he didn't
believe should be the dominant [factor]. He preferred leaving
it as the ordinary interpretation of the statutes. He referred
to Section 13 which in part says, "...shall interpret this
chapter ... that is no more restrictive of the actions of the
legislators than is necessary to implement the intent of the
law."
CO-CHAIR DONLEY commented that [the commission] should be doing
it in that manner now.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that there a many ways in which one
could interpret this such as a interpreting it in a manner that
maximizes public disclosure or that keeps elections fair. He
reiterated his preference to leaving the interpretation of this
to the normal method.
CO-CHAIR DONLEY announced that this is a close call.
SENATOR HOFFMAN informed the committee that he liked the
language.
SENATOR MILLER commented that he didn't have much of a problem
with the language. He further commented that the committee has
come a long way in creating a fair piece of legislation that both
bodies could agree on as well as correcting some problems that
have existed. Therefore, he indicated that [not deleting
Sections 1 and 13] is not worth killing this legislation.
Senator Miller stated that he didn't have any objection to the
deletion of Sections 1 and 13.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS agreed.
CO-CHAIR DONLEY noted that he is sympathetic to Senator Hoffman's
concerns, however he too believes that the bill now addresses
many issues that needed to be fixed, including bringing the
statutes into compliance with the court decision.
SENATOR HOFFMAN indicated that he was okay [with the deletion of
Sections 1 and 13].
CO-CHAIR DONLEY announced that there being no objection, Sections
1 and 13 would be deleted.
SENATOR MILLER suggested, to which the committee agreed, that the
committee meet tomorrow in order to review the new CS.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Conference Committee
on HB 225, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|