Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/22/2001 03:37 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
February 22, 2001
3:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gene Therriault, Chair
Senator Randy Phillips, Vice Chair
Senator Drue Pearce
Senator Bettye Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Rick Halford
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 103
"An Act relating to election campaigns and legislative ethics; and
providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action recorded.
WITNESS REGISTER
Joe Balash
Senate State Affairs Staff
Alaska Capitol Building Room 121
Juneau, AK 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained SB 103
Brooke Miles, Assistant Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission
2221 E. Northern Lights Room 128
Anchorage, AK 99508-4149
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about SB 103
Susie Barnett, Executive Director
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
P.O. Box 101468
Anchorage, AK 99510-1468
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about SB 103
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-8, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN GENE THERRIAULT called the Senate State Affairs Committee
meeting to order at 3:37 p.m. Present were Senators Davis Pearce
and Phillips and Chairman Therriault.
SB 103 was the only item on the agenda.
SB 103-ELECTION CAMPAIGNS AND LEGISLATIVE ETHICS
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT advised committee members that a fiscal note
from Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) and informational
letters from Brooke Miles of APOC and Mike Frank were in committee
packets.
He said he has looked at vetoed legislation dealing with election
campaigns and legislative ethics and tried to remove the parts that
were objected to for this legislation.
JOE BALASH, staff to Senate State Affairs Committee, called SB 103
a clean up bill that "addresses some of the gray areas and puts
into statute common practices that occur within that gray area
based on formal and informal decisions and opinions from both APOC
and the ethics committee."
Section 1 allows candidates to register multiple groups that would
be treated as a single group for purposes of the contribution
limits for that candidate.
Section 2 includes thank you advertisements as an allowable use of
campaign funds. According to APOC, this is currently common
practice so putting it into statute would make it clear that this
is the intention of the legislature.
Section 3 increases the total value of personal property that a
candidate may keep from $2,500 to $5,000. It also enumerates
additional items that may be retained after the campaign. These
items include photographs, seasonal greeting cards and campaign
signs.
Section 4 allows the interest accrued on a public office expense
term (POET) reserve account to be transferred to a POET account.
This makes it clear that principle and interest can be transferred
from the reserve account.
Section 5 provides that money held by public entities may be used
to influence the outcome of a ballot proposition or question under
limited circumstances.
Section 6 excludes certain items from the definition of campaign
contributions. Professional services provided by volunteers to
political parties, mass mailings provided by parties for each race
around the state and certain poll results limited to issues and not
designed by the candidate or designed to benefit the candidate.
Number 359
Section 7 adds new exceptions and clarifies some of the
prohibitions on the use of public assets such as legislative
offices, phones, and computers. Legislative ethics are brought into
play for some of the non-legislative purposes. It also clarifies
the prohibition and use of public assets for certain political uses
including support or opposition of initiatives or constitutional
amendments that will appear on the ballot.
Section 8 gives the effective date for the legislation as January
1, 2002, which would follow the next election cycle.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT called for questions and received no response.
He asked Brooke Miles if she had anything to add to the discussion
that she hadn't covered in her letter to the committee.
BROOKE MILES, assistant director Alaska Public Offices Commission,
said that, as stated in her letter, the commission hasn't had the
opportunity to review the bill. However, she was concerned about
certain provisions in Section 6. There is concern about removing
polls from the definition of a contribution. This will not only
require the commission to evaluate the content and intention of
polls to determine whether the poll is intended to benefit a
candidate, it may also create a loophole through which prohibited
entities could contribute significantly to campaigns. It could
allow lobbyists to purchase issue polls and then give them to
certain candidates even though lobbyists are specifically
prohibited from contributing to legislative campaigns other than
those in the district where they are registered to vote.
Corporations could do the same and since this would not be
considered a contribution, the public would have no knowledge of
this.
Excluding mass mailings creates difficulties as well. After
contributing the maximum allowed by law, parties could conceivably
become involved in multiple mass mailings for their slate or become
involved in municipal elections.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked how parties assign value to a particular
candidate for party slate and absentee mailings where congressional
and district candidates are mentioned on the same mailing.
MS. MILES said the party reports to APOC, the cost of the mailing
divided by the number of candidates mentioned. She noted that
congressional oversight is not part of APOC's purview.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for confirmation that the congressional
candidates were included in the formula.
MS. MILES said yes, that the congressional portion wouldn't be
reported to APOC but it would be subtracted from the total.
SENATOR PHILLIPS noted that Ms. Miles' memo had an error in the
effective date.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said there was confusion about whether all
excess money could be transferred from the POET reserve to the POET
account or just the principle. He couldn't understand the need for
the reserve account and asked her to comment.
MS. MILES said that the suggestion for the two accounts didn't come
from the commission. Reasoning behind the two accounts was that
there might be a tax liability in keeping the funds in just one
account. She went on to say that there was significant confusion
about the double accounts and there seems to be no reason for the
requirement. The basics wouldn't change with just one account. For
instance, " a senator could hold up to $20,000 and a house member
up to $10,000 or $5,000 for each year of the term and spend up to
$5,000 to augment their expenses, which is reported on an annual
report."
Number 904
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether there would be a restriction to
spend no more than $5,000 from the POET account if he had carried
$7,000 forward.
MS. MILES said that was correct and that this amount was determined
as campaign finance reform progressed through the legislative
process.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for questions, then called on Susie
Barnett.
SUSIE BARNETT, Executive Director Legislative Ethics Committee,
said that the committee hadn't reviewed the legislation so she was
not commenting on behalf of the committee.
She did have a comment on page 9 lines 19 and 20, subsection G,
dealing with "reasonable use of the Internet by a legislator or a
legislative employee except if the use is for election campaign
purposes;". Although this doesn't appear to be unreasonable, it
conflicts with page 8, line 25, a subsection that specifically
addresses using government assets or resources for the purpose of
political fund raising or campaigning. She questioned including
subsection (G) in the legislation.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether she meant that it should be
placed elsewhere or worded more clearly.
MS. BARNETT said that on lines 10 and 11 and at the bottom of page
8, there are general office items mentioned and the intent is clear
that there can be common sense use of the Internet. However,
meshing this with subsection (G) may cause interpretive
difficulties for the committee if they received a request for
advice or had a complaint filed.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT thanked Ms. Barnett and asked for further
testimony. There was none.
He announced that SB 103 would be held in committee.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|