01/19/2024 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB28 | |
| SB17 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 17 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 19, 2024
1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Matt Claman, Chair
Senator Jesse Kiehl, Vice Chair
Senator James Kaufman
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator Löki Tobin
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 28(FIN)
"An Act restricting the release of certain records of
convictions; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 17
"An Act relating to political contributions; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 28
SHORT TITLE: ACCESS TO MARIJUANA CONVICTION RECORDS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WRIGHT
01/19/23 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/23
01/19/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/23 (H) JUD, FIN
03/01/23 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/01/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/01/23 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/08/23 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/08/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/08/23 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/14/23 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/14/23 (H) Moved CSHB 28(JUD) Out of Committee
04/14/23 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/24/23 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 2DP 2NR 2AM
04/24/23 (H) DP: C.JOHNSON, GRAY
04/24/23 (H) NR: CARPENTER, VANCE
04/24/23 (H) AM: GROH, EASTMAN
04/26/23 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM ADAMS 519
04/26/23 (H) Heard & Held
04/26/23 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
05/01/23 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM ADAMS 519
05/01/23 (H) Heard & Held
05/01/23 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
05/05/23 (H) FIN AT 9:30 AM ADAMS 519
05/05/23 (H) Moved CSHB 28(FIN) Out of Committee
05/05/23 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
05/08/23 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) 8DP 1NR
05/08/23 (H) DP: CRONK, ORTIZ, STAPP, GALVIN,
HANNAN, EDGMON, D.JOHNSON, FOSTER
05/08/23 (H) NR: JOSEPHSON
05/12/23 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
05/12/23 (H) VERSION: CSHB 28(FIN)
05/13/23 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/13/23 (S) JUD, FIN
01/19/24 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 17
SHORT TITLE: CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) KAWASAKI
01/18/23 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/23
01/18/23 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/23 (S) STA, JUD
04/27/23 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/27/23 (S) Heard & Held
04/27/23 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/06/23 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
05/06/23 (S) Moved SB 17 Out of Committee
05/06/23 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/08/23 (S) STA RPT 2DP 1NR
05/08/23 (S) DP: KAWASAKI, WIELECHOWSKI
05/08/23 (S) NR: BJORKMAN
01/19/24 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE STANLEY WRIGHT, District 22
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 28.
FORREST WOLFE, Staff
Senator Stanley Wright
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for HB 28.
LACY WILCOX, Legislative Liaison
Alaska Marijuana Industry Association (AMIA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 28.
LISA PURINTON, Director
Division of Statewide Services
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 28.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Administrative Offices
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by invitation and answered
questions during the discussion of HB 28.
DAVID MORGAN, Governmental Affairs Associate
Reason Foundation
Atlanta, Georgia
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by invitation on HB 28.
RYAN TUNSETH, President
Alaska Marijuana Industry Association
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 28.
LACY WILCOX, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 28.
SENATOR SCOTT KAWASAKI, District P
Alaska State Legislature
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 17.
JOE HAYES, Staff
Senator Scott Kawasaki
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis and
delivered a presentation on SB 17.
PAT RACE, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 17.
JIM SYKES, representing self
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 17.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:30:53 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Kiehl, Kaufman, Giessel, Tobin and Chair Claman.
HB 28-ACCESS TO MARIJUANA CONVICTION RECORDS
[The Senate companion bill is SB 100.]
1:31:26 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced the consideration of CS FOR HOUSE BILL
NO. 28(FIN) "An Act restricting the release of certain records
of convictions; and providing for an effective date."
This is the first hearing of this bill in the Senate Judiciary
Committee.
CHAIR CLAMAN invited Representative Wright and Mr. Wolfe to put
themselves on the record and present the bill.
1:31:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STANLEY WRIGHT, District 22, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of HB 28, introduced the
bill. He stated that this meaningful legislation is an important
and necessary step for individuals convicted of low-level
cannabis possession. It will open opportunities, reduce
barriers, and help many people. Individuals want to rent
apartments and get jobs, but their online records prevent their
candidacy. He explained that many Alaskans statewide have been
looking forward to this bill to move on with their lives and
reach their full potential. He advocates for this legislation
for this reason. He paraphrased the following sponsor statement:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Sponsor Statement
Alaskans voted to legalize the cultivation, sale, and
possession and recreational use of marijuana for
persons 21 years of age or older in 2014. Despite this
change in state law, some Alaskans remain blocked from
employment and housing and other opportunities due to
previous marijuana possession convictions that today
are recognized as non-criminal activities.
House Bill 28 would make confidential the records of
individuals who were convicted of minor marijuana
crimes, were 21 years of age or older at the time of
the offense and were not charged with any other crimes
in the same incident. These records would
automatically be removed from CourtView. The records
would also be removed from some background checks
administered by the Department of Public Safety, if
requested by the convicted individual.
According to figures provided by the Alaska Department
of Public Safety, not less than 8,000 Alaskans are
hindered in day to day life by marijuana convictions
that are eligible for the confidentiality protections
in this bill.
This bill would recategorize low level marijuana
offenses for individuals 18-21 years of age from Class
B misdemeanors to minor violations punishable by a
fine and eliminate unnecessary use of judiciary
resources for court hearings. It would also prohibit
the Alaska Court System from publishing records of
these violations on CourtView, from the effective date
of the bill going forward.
With Alaskans having spoken by means of legalization
of marijuana this bill would allow those that by
today's standards would not be considered as a
criminal offender to move forward with their life
without the obstruction that can be incurred by such a
conviction on one's record while still allowing
provisions for adequate access to background or
statistical information for those appropriate
agencies.
1:34:10 PM
FORREST WOLFE, Staff, Senator Stanley Wright, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the following sectional
analysis for HB 28.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Sectional Analysis for Version U
Section 1: Intent language stating the intent of the
bill is to reduce barriers to employment and other
basic daily functions for individuals who under past
statutes were convicted of low-level marijuana related
crimes.
Section 2: Describes when, why, and to which agencies
or organizations the criminal justice information
protected in this bill may be released.
Section 3: Establishes that an agency may not release
criminal justice information for low-level, non-
violent, marijuana possession charges which are no
longer crimes under current statute.
Section 4: Establishes that records relating to the
individuals and occurrences in this bill shall not be
publicly published by the Alaska Court System.
Additionally establishes that the Court System will
state on its website that certain court records have
been removed from the website and provide information
on how to obtain information removed from public view.
Section 5: Establishes the effective date of
January 1, 2024.
1:35:38 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that Section 5 indicates an effective date of
January 1, 2024. He sought confirmation that an amendment would
update the effective date.
MR. WOLFE replied that the intent was for HB 28 to go into
effect this year. He said the year of the effective date will
change to 2025.
1:36:09 PM
SENATOR TOBIN said HB 28 is an excellent bill. She asked why the
bill includes a date in the intent language on page 1, line 8,
and the rationale behind choosing that particular date.
MR. WOLFE replied that he is not certain there was a particular
significance other than the drafters did it that way. The
sponsor did not specifically request that date.
1:36:37 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Senator Tobin whether there is a significant
difference between the bill she sponsored and HB 28.
SENATOR TOBIN replied that HB 28 was amended by the House when
it went through the House committee process. So, there are
differences between the original bill and the version before the
committee.
CHAIR CLAMAN sought confirmation that the House and Senate
versions of the bill are no longer identical.
SENATOR TOBIN affirmed the bills are no longer identical.
1:37:04 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL mentioned a change that deleted a fee for
removing an individual's name. She asked why there was a fee in
the original bill.
MR. WOLFE replied that while a fee was not in the original bill,
the House Judiciary Committee members were comfortable adding
one since the fee reduced the fiscal note. However, the House
Finance Committee removed it. The sponsor is okay with not
having a fee in HB 28.
1:37:45 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that HB 28 is a worthy piece of legislation
and is glad to see it before the committee. He brought up the
subject of hemp products, specifically Delta-8
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and Delta-9 THC. He asked whether
Delta-8 is a scheduled substance or a commercial substance that
falls under hemp rules.
MR. WOLFE replied that he did not have that information readily
available. He deferred to Ms. Purinton and Ms. Wilcox.
1:39:13 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN directed the question to Senator Tobin.
SENATOR TOBIN indicated that she did not have an answer to the
question.
CHAIR CLAMAN invited Ms. Wilcox to come forward to answer the
question.
LACY WILCOX, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Marijuana Industry
Association (AMIA), Juneau, Alaska, conveyed that AMIA is a
trade group that represents licensed marijuana companies in
Alaska.
MS. WILCOX answered the question by focusing her comments on
Delta-9 THC, the U.S. Farm Bill, and Alaska regulations. She
said Delta-9 THC is known as the "hot hemp" issue. Alaska
implemented regulations for the oversight of hemp products.
Brick-and-mortar stores that sell such products in Alaska are
required to possess a cannabis license. These regulations
recently went into effect, and enforcement will follow. While
these regulations affect stores in Alaska, young individuals may
order these products online for home delivery without committing
a crime under the current legal framework.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the distinction between hemp and
marijuana has any bearing on the legislation before the
committee today.
MS. WILCOX replied, no impact.
1:41:28 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN cited Section 3, paragraph 4 of HB 28, which reads
it is the individual who requests the agency "not release the
conviction records." He said many individuals do not know how to
apply for this request. He asked why the responsibility of
making records unavailable falls on the individual rather than
the Department of Public Safety, particularly if the legislation
is as crucial as the sponsor suggests.
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT replied that the system is old and not as
straightforward as a light switch. The records must be combed
through to figure out who did what. He deferred to Ms. Purinton
to explain further.
1:42:31 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN invited Ms. Purinton to the testifier's table to
expound on the question.
LISA PURINTON, Director, Division of Statewide Services,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), Anchorage, Alaska, replied
that the state's central repository of criminal history records
is stored on a legacy mainframe system. It has been in place
since the late 1980s, and the department is looking to replace
that system. The disposition of records has been stored in
various ways for nearly 40 years, which creates challenges in
programming and locating specific records. While the system can
be programmed to remove some records, older records require a
manual review. This will take some time. HB 28 has a fiscal note
for two reasons:
1. DPS will need to hire a programmer to write code. She
explained that the legacy mainframe system requires
specialized contractors with a unique skill set, no longer
taught, to help support the mainframe and write code.
2. Temporary staff are needed to research those records, and the
goal is to proactively remove the records in two years.
CHAIR CLAMAN sought confirmation that additional staff are
necessary to research removal requests in order to determine
whether a conviction record is eligible for removal.
MS. PURINTON replied yes, that would be correct.
CHAIR CLAMAN summarized her answer, stating it is way too
complicated, way too expensive, and it may not be doable.
MS. PURINTON replied that would be correct due to the
technological limitations of the mainframe and the way the
records were stored in the system. DPS will proactively try to
remove a large swath of records programmatically, but other
records will require human intervention for removal.
1:45:04 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN inquired about the way information is input. He
asked whether it aligns with an Alaska Public Safety Information
Network (APSIN) printout. He clarified that ASPIN printouts do
not reflect the details of the conviction but give certain
classes. However, it does not have the same level of detail
found in court records.
LISA PURINTON replied affirmatively, confirming that she
intended to convey that information exactly.
1:45:25 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN inquired about the possibility of incorporating
language into HB 28 that:
- enables a manual on-demand process initially,
- shifts to a more automated process once the mainframe system
is updated, and
- that creates the capability to move seamlessly to a more
automated mode.
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT replied that he is open to any amendment
to enhance the legislation.
SENATOR KAUFMAN replied that he is happy to work with the
sponsor on an amendment.
1:46:21 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Ms. Meade to come forward to offer invited
testimony on the bill.
1:46:40 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Offices, Alaska
Court System (ACS), Anchorage, Alaska, testified by invitation,
stating Section 4 is the only section in HB 28 that refers to
CourtView and impacts the Alaska Court System. She pointed out
that CourtView records are distinct from APSIN and DPS official
court records. ACS has already taken the step to remove
conviction records for marijuana possession of under an ounce
for people over 21 years of age from its public website. The
Alaska Supreme Court removed all those records in May of last
year. As a result, HB 28 will not change anything ACS does or
require ACS to take any additional action.
1:47:32 PM
SENATOR TOBIN said Section 4 states the Alaska Court System
shall provide notice on its public website that those records
were removed. She sought confirmation that ACS posted this
notice on its website.
MS. MEADE replied yes, notice has been posted for a number of
years. The notice shows certain cases were removed from the
CourtView public access website. A rule in The Alaska Rules of
Court provides for the removal of certain categories of cases
from CourtView. She believed that up to 15 categories had been
removed from CourtView. These categories are linked on the
webpage. She said a link is available to individuals who believe
their name is improperly visible on CourtView. Individuals may
file a request to exclude their case from CourtView, and ACS
will review it. She suggested ACS did its job well because only
one person has ever filed a form to have their record excluded
since ACS removed those specific marijuana cases.
SENATOR TOBIN commented that the ACS notice on its public
website sounds robust and very informative.
1:49:06 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether keeping Section 4 in the bill is
important. He wondered if the committee should consider its
deletion since ACS had already addressed the issue. He sought
assurance that ACS would not change paths six years from now and
start putting more information on CourtView.
MS. MEADE answered that ACS is not moving towards including more
information on CourtView. CourtView began in the early 2000s,
and the cultural view was that the more data online, the better.
Over the years, that view has changed. People began to see the
flaws in too much information, such as not readily understanding
and misinterpreting the information. She explained that ACS used
to post filed domestic violence protective orders where the
judge determined there was no merit to the claim. As a result,
people suffered distress, which the courts determined was
disproportionate to the action. Since 2004, ACS has added
categories for exclusion, not inclusion, on CourtView. The ACS
mindset leans toward more restrictions on public access.
MS. MEADE surmised there is a 99.9 percent chance that ACS would
never repost these cases. It has been legal since 2014. She
declared it would not happen because a court rule has already
removed these cases from CourtView. She emphasized that court
rules are just as much of a law as statutes. Whether Section 4
is necessary is a decision for the committee to consider. She
said it may not be needed.
1:51:38 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN sought confirmation that it is pursuant to court
rule that those cases were removed from CourtView and not
arbitrarily removed by the CourtView administrator. He asked
whether those decisions were made through Alaska Supreme Court
orders.
MS. MEADE replied absolutely. ACS has Rules of Administration.
Administrative Rule 40 is the rule that governs whether a case
is posted on public CourtView, as opposed to internal CourtView.
She explained that internal CourtView contains an index to all
cases, including Child in Need of Aid cases, and is available
for ACS staff use. Administrative Rule 40 states all of that
shall be made available to the public except for the list of 16
exceptions, including domestic violence protective orders, cases
where a charging document was never filed, and exception 15, the
marijuana cases described in HB 28.
MS. MEADE responded yes to his second question.
CHAIR CLAMAN thanked Ms. Meade and proceeded to the next invited
testifier.
1:53:02 PM
DAVID MORGAN, Legislative Affairs Associate, Reason Foundation,
Atlanta, Georgia, testified by invitation, stating HB 28 is an
important step toward justice for Alaskans harmed by the war on
drugs. Alaska was an early leader in cannabis reform but now
lags behind 24 other states that adopted reforms to conceal
marijuana-related conviction records. Criminal records can make
it difficult for individuals to participate as productive
members of society. He explained that nearly 90 percent of
employers nationwide conduct background checks on job
applicants. Research suggests that job applicants with criminal
convictions are approximately 50 percent less likely to receive
a callback. Individuals with criminal records face significant
difficulty engaging in other productive activities, such as
securing housing, obtaining professional licenses, joining the
military, gaining admission to universities, accessing financial
services, and maintaining child custody. It may sometimes be in
the interest of public safety to track and provide information
to the public about an individual's criminal record. However,
life-long criminal records for conduct that is now legal do not
make sense. There is little to no evidence that providing these
records and background checks contributes to public safety.
Compared to other states that have legalized marijuana, this is
a relatively small step toward fixing the damage caused by
prohibition. These reforms will provide much-needed relief to
many Alaskans. He thanked the committee for their time and
consideration of HB 28.
1:55:32 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 28.
1:55:55 PM
RYAN TUNSETH, President, Alaska Marijuana Industry Association,
Kenai, Alaska, testified in support of HB 28, stating this
important piece of legislation is an incremental step towards
destigmatizing cannabis consumption. He said the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services (DHSS) released a request to the
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) last Friday. DHSS
requested that the DEA reclassify cannabis from a Class I
controlled substance to a Class III controlled substance. He
said that AMIA supports anything that removes small barriers,
promotes positive life outcomes, and recognizes the damage done
by the failed war on drugs. This bill is a step in the right
direction.
1:58:11 PM
LACY WILCOX, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
support of HB 28, stating she has been involved in Smart Justice
Reform and pro-cannabis policy for nearly ten years. She said
that her history with cannabis and its complicated legal status
began as a youth. She said that she was born in Homer, Alaska,
the home of some cannabis champions, specifically Irwin Ravin.
She said that she has watched good-meaning people grapple with
the difficult choice of using a therapeutic medicine to treat
their ailments or not using it for fear of the justice system.
There is a disastrous consequence in both cases. She explained
when individuals do not use their medicine, it can lead to an
addiction to a far stronger substance, such as opioids. The
choice to consume alternative medicine for pain or other
ailments can lead to the consequences that create the barriers
discussed today. There is no easy choice. The complicated
history of marijuana's legal status over the years has been
confusing for people to understand. She said, "If you can grow,
you can smoke." She expressed her support for HB 28, citing her
advocacy for cannabis legalization and her background as a
proponent of natural medicine and therapy. It is time to see
this legislation move forward.
2:00:09 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN closed public testimony on HB 28.
CHAIR CLAMAN held HB 28 in committee.
SB 17-CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
2:00:15 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 17
"An Act relating to political contributions; and providing for
an effective date."
[This is the first hearing of this bill in the Senate Judiciary
Committee.]
CHAIR CLAMAN invited Senator Kawasaki and Mr. Hayes to identify
themselves for the record and begin their remarks.
2:01:22 PM
SENATOR SCOTT KAWASAKI, District P, Alaska State Legislature,
Fairbanks, Alaska, sponsor of SB 17, presented the following
sponsor statement:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Sponsor Statement
Alaska has long regulated campaign contributions and
limited the amount that can be donated to political
campaigns. Following the VECO scandal in 2006, the
people of Alaska approved a ballot initiative that
established strict contribution limits. Part of the
argument behind that initiative was that limiting the
amount of money candidates can raise would curb the
type of corruption seen during VECO.
In 2019 the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned
some of Alaska's political contribution limits in the
case Thompson v. Hebdon. The Thompson decision struck
down the limits, including the limits on contributions
from individuals, nongroup entities, nonpolitical
party entities, and joint campaigns for Governor and
Lieutenant Governor.
This bill establishes new campaign contribution limits
compliant with the Thompson decision. It increases
these limits such that they are nearly indexed for the
rate of inflation between 2006 and 2023. The limits
are rounded to the nearest hundred. Here are the new
limits:
• Individual contribution limits from $500 to $700
• Nonpolitical party group limits from $1,000 to
$1,400
• Nongroup entity limits from $1,000 to $1,400
• Individual limits to a joint candidacy for Governor
and Lieutenant Gov. from $1,000 to $1,400
• Group limits to a joint candidacy for Governor and
Lieutenant Gov. from $2,000 to $2,800
The Thompson decision also stipulated that
contribution limits must be indexed for inflation. SB
17 requires APOC to index contribution limits for
inflation by regulation starting in 2024 and after
subsequent terms of four years.
I respectfully urge your support for SB17 to help
limit corruption by establishing new campaign
contribution limits. Please reach out to my office
with any questions or concerns.
2:04:47 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN asked how the VECO Corporation scandal was
connected to campaign contribution limits.
SENATOR KAWASAKI replied that the public has embraced the
concept of having campaign contribution limits. He said that
most people would probably be astounded to hear that Alaska used
to have a $500 limit, adding most of the contributors he talks
to donate in the $10 range. People are pretty shocked to learn
how much money can get into campaigns, especially at the federal
level. He said that most competitive congressional races are at
the $1 million to $1.5 million level, which does not seem like a
practical number for most of the public. He said that the VECO
scandal was something that just happened. He asserted that the
public prefers to see some limitations placed on the amount of
money in individual elections and transparency in the amount
involved.
2:06:18 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN shared an issue of concern. He explained that
contributions to candidates are limited, and they are all fairly
transparent. The State requires candidates to adhere to
extensive reporting requirements for contributions and expenses
through the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) system,
which is rather strident in its reporting requirements. It
tabulates everything a candidate takes in and spends against
either the political organization or the candidate. He compared
the reporting requirements of APOC to independent expenditure
requirements, stating they do not have that transparency. He
asked whether SB 17 addresses this issue.
SENATOR KAWASAKI answered SB 17 only addresses the Thompson v.
Hebdon case. It deals with individual limits, political parties,
and political action committees. He said a different part of the
law governs independent expenditure groups.
2:07:31 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN said that while this limits the transparent
reporting process for candidates, it leaves the obscure,
independent expenditure process wide open. He pointed out this
creates a very asymmetrical playing field.
SENATOR KAWASAKI reassured the committee that SB 17 does not
impose limitations on transparency. According to APOC, the level
of transparency remains unchanged. Candidates will continue to
report contributions over a certain amount and for:
- the 30-day filing,
- the 10-day filing, and
- the 24-hour report if the contribution is over a $500
aggregate.
These requirements remain in effect regardless of whether SB 17
passes. If the bill passes, it will restrict the total
contribution amount specified in the sponsor statement.
2:08:29 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN clarified that his intention was not to suggest
that this bill limits transparency. He clarified that it limits
funding going into the most transparent system that Alaska has.
The APOC reporting requirements have a higher transparency
threshold compared to the independent expenditure process. He
asked about the transparency imbalance between the two reporting
requirements.
SENATOR KAWASAKI replied that he is willing to look into the
issue further. He said the public wants to know where every
campaign dollar comes from and whether the money comes from
outside or inside the state. Since 2019, different versions of
this bill have had various types of filing requirements. This
bill is more simplified.
2:09:36 PM
SENATOR TOBIN drew attention to slide 4 of the presentation "SB
17 Campaign Contributions." It indicates the process of limiting
campaign contributions dates back to 1995. She asked about the
contribution limits in SB 17 and their likelihood of
withstanding further litigation.
SENATOR KAWASAKI replied that he took the $500 individual
contribution limit and indexed it, based on inflation, over time
since 2006. He expressed his belief the dollar amount is roughly
accurate.
2:10:42 PM
SENATOR KIEHL drew attention to slide 4 of the presentation. He
conjectured that while Alaskans would agree to lower the
campaign contribution limit to $50 if asked the question, courts
ask a different question to examine contribution limits. The
question is not whether people want to enrich themselves with
politics. He expressed his belief the question has to do with
quid pro quo corruption or its appearance. He asked the sponsor
to elaborate on the difference between contributions where an
individual hands a candidate a direct, discreet amount of money
versus something indirect, disconnected, and uncoordinated like
the independent expenditures Senator Kaufman mentioned.
SENATOR KAWASAKI answered that independent expenditure campaigns
exist and are legal under current law, but they cannot
coordinate with the candidate they support. They are not allowed
to work with the candidate's campaign committee.
2:12:32 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether he agreed with the viewpoint that
the risk of quid pro quo corruption associated with
contributions diminishes if the donor cannot coordinate with the
candidate. He asked whether this viewpoint is relevant as a
defensible approach in court.
SENATOR KAWASAKI replied yes, that is a fairly definitive
difference. He revisited a prior question concerning attachments
to independent expenditure campaigns; he said he would like to
this happen. He expressed a mutual concern with the public to
know where the source of donated dollars originated. He said
Alaska has had sunshine laws and transparency laws on third-
party groups. For instance, groups that advocate for or against
an initiative must disclose their top three donors. He stated
that although SB 17 does not deal specifically with these
issues, he is open to discussions.
2:13:54 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked why SB 17 proposes annual limits rather than
campaign limits.
SENATOR KAWASAKI replied that he did not draft the bill that
way. He expressed his belief that a spokesperson for the ballot
initiative may want to speak to the question.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked about the policy rationale behind opting for
annual limits over campaign limits in drafting the bill. He
highlighted that federal campaigns consider campaign limits
rather than annual limits.
SENATOR KAWASAKI answered he drafted the legislation four years
ago. He expressed familiarity with Alaska's typical contribution
deadlines and said that he had not taken campaign limits into
account. He said that Mr. Hayes, his aide, has a brief
presentation on SB 17.
CHAIR CLAMAN invited Mr. Hayes to begin.
2:15:53 PM
JOE HAYES, Staff, Senator Scott Kawasaki, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the sectional analysis
and delivered a presentation on SB 17. The sectional analysis
follows:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Sectional Analysis
Section 1. AS 15.13.070(b)
This amends the statute by increasing the individual
contribution limit from $500 to $700. This applies to
individuals donating to nongroup entities, candidates,
write-in candidates, or nonpolitical party groups.
Section 2. AS 15.13.070(c)
Amends the statute by increasing the contribution
limit for groups that are not political parties from
$1,000 to $1,400. This applies to nonpolitical party
groups donating to a candidate, a write-in candidate,
to another group, a nongroup entity, or to a political
party.
Section 3. AS 15.13.070(f)
This section amends the statute by increasing the
amount nongroup entities can donate from $1,000 to
$1,400. This applies to nongroup entities donating to
another nongroup entity, to candidates, to write-in
candidates, to groups, or to political parties.
Section 4. AS 15.13.070(g)
This amends the statute by increasing the amount
individuals and groups can donate to joint
Gubernatorial and Lieutenant Gubernatorial campaigns.
It increases the amount individuals can donate from
$1,000 to $1,400, and groups from $2,000 to $2,800.
Section 5. AS 15.13.070(h)
This section adds a new subsection that indexes these
campaign limits to inflation. Starting in 2024, and
every term of four years thereafter, the commission
shall by regulation adjust these contribution limits
to account for inflation.
Section 6.
Provides this bill with an immediate effective date.
2:17:57 PM
MR. HAYES presented a slideshow titled "Senate Bill 17 Campaign
Contributions."
MR. HAYES moved to slide 2:
Increasing the Limits on Campaign Contributions
Section 1:
Individuals: $500 >> $700 per year
Section 2:
A non political party group: $1000 >> $1,400 per year
Section 3:
Nongroup entity (such as XXX): $1000 >> $1,400 per
year
Section 4
Concerning Governor and Lt. Governor campaigns:
Individuals $1,000 >> $1,400;
Groups $2,000 >> $2,800 per year
MR. HAYES explained the calculation method used to determine
contribution limits on slide 3:
Effective Date and CPI Increases
Section 5:
Beginning in the first quarter of calendar year 2024
and every four years thereafter, the commission shall,
by regulation, adjust the contribution limitations set
out in this section by a percentage equal to the
percentage of increase over the preceding four-year
period in all items of the Consumer Price Index for
all urban consumers for Anchorage, Alaska, rounded to
the nearest $10 increment.
2:18:29 PM
MR. HAYES reviewed a brief history of campaign limits on slides
4 and 5:
A Brief History
• In 1995, citizens filed an initiative that
included lowering the limits on individual
campaign contributions from $1000 to $500.
• The legislature heard the call of the people
and enacted a new law before the initiative
came to fruition. The stated purpose of the new
law was "to restore the public's trust in the
electoral process and to foster good
government."
• Years later, the legislature raised the limit
back to $1,000.
• In 2006, the people once again filed an
initiative, and this time it came to be, lowering
the limits again to $500 with 73% support.
• In 2021, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled the limit unconstitutional.
• The Court argued that because $500 was
unusually low, applied to all state races, and
was not indexed with inflation to grow over
time, that it infringed on donors' freedom of
speech and gave an unfair advantage to
incumbents.
• In the aftermath of the decision, Alaska's
Public Office Commission set the individual-
to-candidate limit at $1,500.
SB 17's ceilings would roughly track inflation for
what Alaskans approved in 2006, though are a bit
higher.
2:20:01 PM
MR. HAYES read slide 6:
How it Could Survive Legal Challenge
To review, The Ninth Circuit Court argued that, since
$500 was unusually low, applied to all state races,
and was not indexed with inflation to grow over time,
it infringed on donors' freedom of speech and gave an
unfair advantage to incumbents.
SB 17's limits are not unusually low and are indexed
with inflation to grow over time. Thus, it follows
from that ruling that these would survive a challenge
made on the same grounds as the last one.
In the 40 states that do have limits on contributions
to legislative candidates, the average is $2,848 per
election, ranging from $180 in Montana to $13,704.
Ours would be slightly higher or lower depending on
the source of the contributionnot unusual.
2:20:54 PM
MR. HAYES moved to slide 7:
Reviewing the Increases
Section 1:
Individuals: $500 >> $700 per year
Section 2:
A non-political party group: $1000 >> $1,400 per year
Section 3:
Nongroup entity (such as XXX): $1000 >> $1,400 per
year
Section 4
Concerning Governor and Lt. Governor campaigns:
Individuals $1,000 >> $1,400;
Groups $2,000 >> $2,800 per year
2:21:08 PM
MR. HAYES read slide 8:
You may be familiar with some related cases
In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014),
the court held that states cannot place limits on
aggregate contributions (the total of all
contributions to all candidates) by individuals or
groups. Existing limits on per-candidate contributions
were not addressed and thus not changed. (NCSL)
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
(2010), independent expenditures were at hand. SB 17
would not limit those.
2:21:43 PM
MR. HAYES moved to slides 10 11 pertaining to definitions:
Definition of Nongroup entities
15.13.400
(14) "nongroup entity" means a person, other than an
individual, that takes action the major purpose of
which is to influence the outcome of an election, and
that
(A) cannot participate in business activities;
(B) does not have shareholders who have a claim on
corporate earnings; and
(C) is independent from the influence of business
corporations.
"Group that is not a political party"
15.13.400
(9) "group" means (A) every state and regional
executive committee of a political party;
(B) any combination of two or more individuals acting
jointly who organize for the principal purpose of
influencing the outcome of one or more elections and
who take action the major purpose of which is to
influence the outcome of an election; a group that
makes expenditures or receives contributions with the
authorization or consent, express or implied, or under
the control, direct or indirect, of a candidate shall
be considered to be controlled by that candidate; a
group whose major purpose is to further the
nomination, election, or candidacy of only one
individual, or intends to expend more than 50 percent
of its money on a single candidate, shall be
considered to be controlled by that candidate and its
actions done with the candidate's knowledge and
consent unless, within 10 days from the date the
candidate learns of the existence of the group the
candidate files with the commission, on a form
provided by the commission, an affidavit that the
group is operating without the candidate's control; a
group organized for more than one year preceding an
election and endorsing candidates for more than one
office or more than one political party is presumed
not to be controlled by a candidate; however, a group
that contributes more than 50 percent of its money to
or on behalf of one candidate shall be considered to
support only one candidate for purposes of AS
15.13.070, whether or not control of the group has
been disclaimed by the candidate; and
(C) any combination of two or more individuals acting
jointly who organize for the principal purpose of
filing an initiative proposal application under AS
15.45.020 or who file an initiative proposal
application under AS 15.45.020; I should repeat that
this law would not apply to independent expenditures.
2:21:55 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN invited questions from committee members.
2:21:59 PM
SENATOR TOBIN drew attention to slide 3 and asked why the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Anchorage was selected for
calculating the contribution limit when the cost-of-living
disparity between urban and rural districts is rather high.
SENATOR KAWASAKI replied that Anchorage is the only place in
Alaska where the CPI is consistently calculated. He said the
Fairbanks City Council uses it for its labor contracts. He
acknowledged that it is probably not the best measure, but it is
the most consistent information gathered and evaluated.
2:23:11 PM
SENATOR TOBIN drew attention to slide 6 and asked three
questions:
1. The slide indicates that $500 is an unusually low
contribution limit. She asked about potential legal
implications based on the use of this figure.
2. She sought clarification about whether per election, in the
3rd paragraph, means a combined total for state and
gubernatorial elections.
3. The 3rd paragraph indicates that among the 40 states with
contribution limits, the range spans from $180 to $13,704. She
asked what the calculated average for Alaska is and where it
falls in this range.
SENATOR KAWASAKI said he would do some calculations and get back
to the committee.
2:25:12 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN reported that the U.S. Senate and House of
Representatives campaign finance limits are $3300 per election.
He contended that the lieutenant governor and governor have the
same burden in mounting a statewide campaign as those running
for a U.S. Senate or House seat. He questioned why their
contribution limits are a third below those running for a U.S.
Senate or House seat. He suggested defaulting to the federal
limits, which are already inflation-adjusted.
SENATOR KAWASAKI replied that the state has always had limits
different from the federal limits. He said that he understood
the elements of running a statewide campaign but opined these
were distinctly different races.
SENATOR KAUFMAN suggested further discussion offline. He
expressed the effort and cost associated with the races are
aligned.
2:27:30 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on SB 17.
2:27:52 PM
PAT RACE, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 17. He addressed a previous question about the
VECO scandal, stating that the VECO scandal was not a one-time
incident. It was a long-running scandal. Bill Allen illegally
donated to campaigns under his employees' names and was found
guilty of that. He contributed about $41,000 through 415
employees. The idea of campaign limits is tied directly to the
history of the VECO scandal.
MR. RACE clarified that the ballot proposition mentioned above
failed to get enough signatures in time for this election.
However, it continues to collect signatures and will go on the
ballot if the legislature does not act. He recommended the
legislature act on this matter. He said he has retired judges,
legislators, and his mom out gathering signatures in the cold.
He expressed his belief that this is work they should not have
to do. It is work the legislature should do inside the Capitol.
Seventy-three percent of Alaskan voters passed campaign
contribution limits in 2006. Voters spoke in 2006 and the
initiative and signature-gathering process should not be
reoccurring. Legislators should establish campaign contribution
limits this year.
MR. RACE changed focus to federal rules, asserting these rules
create a cloudy miasma of shadowy dark money donors. He pointed
out that the problem of not having campaign limits is that money
wins elections. He said he is not married to any particular
number and trusts the legislature to decide on a good
contribution limit.
2:30:50 PM
JIM SYKES, representing self, Palmer, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 17. Alaskans like small limits, and it is a good
idea to have contribution limits. Alaskans do not like outside
money in state politics. He expressed his belief that there is
less bad political influence with limits, and most Alaskans will
support it.
2:32:02 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN closed public testimony on SB 17.
CHAIR CLAMAN held SB 17 in committee.
2:32:44 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Claman adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 2:32 p.m.