HB 407-APOC; CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS/REPORTING  Contains Discussions of HB 158  3:35:57 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 407, "An Act relating to the duties of the Alaska Public Offices Commission; clarifying the limits on making, accepting, and reporting certain cash campaign contributions; relating to campaign finance reporting by certain groups; relating to the identification of certain campaign communications; increasing the time the Alaska Public Offices Commission has to respond to a request for an advisory opinion; repealing a reporting requirement for certain contributions; relating to propositions and initiative proposals; and providing for an effective date." 3:36:39 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS offered that he had an amendment drafted although he was unsure whether it would be offered. REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked for confirmation that the proposal would eliminate the duplicative reporting requirement for groups where individuals were expected to report at the same time as the group. 3:37:31 PM HEATHER HEBDEN, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), Department of Administration (DOA), referred to HB 407, Sec. 9. [AS 15.13.040(k), page 5, line 18,] and answered that that is her understanding. Sec. 9 was repealed, the requirement for contributors to report the same information that is currently being reported by the valid initiative group. REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH commented that he appreciates that insight as it will solve some problems. 3:38:05 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to HB 407, Sec. 3. [AS 15.13.040(g), page 3, lines 4-23], and noted that currently, any group, even if they only spend $1, must register with APOC and go through all of the paperwork. He opined that Sec. 3 establishes a $2,500 floor and any group that spends less than that amount does not have to go through the whole APOC process., similar to a candidate who spends less than $5,000 "does not have to do that." Given that this came out of the Senate Finance Subcommittee process, he asked where the $2,500 amount came from, and whether there is any sort of rhyme or reason for $2,500 as opposed to $5,000 or $2,000. MS. HEBDEN opined that the $2,500 was actually derived from the similar language that applies to a candidate's campaign. A candidate's campaign is not in a calendar year, it typically straddles two calendar years given that candidates are able to file a letter of intent up to 18 months from the election. Thereby, limiting it for a group is very similar to the candidate, except it is based on a calendar year so theoretically, she offered, they could still expend up to $5,000 during one election cycle. 3:39:42 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS surmised that effectively the amount is being pro-rated down since the group would be a calendar year, and $5,000 was cut in half which leaves $2,500, and that is the origin for that number. MS. HEBDEN answered in the affirmative. 3:40:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to HB 407, Sec. 8. [AS 15.13.374(c), page 5, lines 14-17], which read as follows: (c) Within 10 business [SEVEN] days after receiving a request satisfying the requirements of (b) of this section, the executive director of the commission shall recommend a draft advisory opinion for the commission to consider at its next meeting. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether it had been determined that changing this from seven days to ten business days would make it almost two weeks before an advisory opinion was issued. MS. HEBDEN answered that Representative LeDoux was correct, it would extend it to ten business days rather than seven days. 3:40:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that in the past it read that "the executive director of the commission shall recommend a draft advisory opinion." She asked whether the candidate or the person requesting the advisory opinion would receive a copy of that draft, and whether the draft advisory opinion is public. MS. HEBDEN noted that she was unsure she understood the question. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered a scenario wherein Candidate A requested an advisory opinion about something, and this legislation read: "the executive director of the commission shall recommend a draft advisory opinion for the commission at its next meeting." She asked whether that draft advisory opinion would be sent to Candidate A. MS. HEBDEN answered that the draft advisory opinion would be issued to the person requesting the opinion. 3:42:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered concern that if a candidate is in the midst of a campaign and requests an advisory opinion, it might take a couple of weekends for the draft advisory opinion to be issued and that is a long time in a campaign season. MS. HEBDEN responded that it does extend the timeframe; however, that does not mean APOC could not issue the draft advisory opinion earlier. Generally, she said, advisory opinion requests are not being requested when leading up to election day. The majority of the time, the requestor of an opinion previously had some type of interaction with APOC staff and they'll have a general idea of the staff's interpretation that will be issued, she explained. This is just the formal process of getting it before the commission and following after 10 business days gives staff a little more time to research the issue as well as confer and have the draft reviewed by the Department of Law (DOL), she advised. 3:43:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that she is still uncomfortable with that explanation because that does not mean that APOC would issue the draft in ten business days and she is uncomfortable with that portion of the bill. 3:44:32 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to HB 407, Sec. 7. [AS 15.13.090(g), page 4, lines 27-31 and page 5, lines 1-12], and asked Ms. Hebden to describe the substance of current law as to the requirement for "paid for by" identifiers. MS. HEBDEN responded that under current law, the requirement for "paid for by" identifiers for written communication is fairly vague. It provides that the "paid for by" identifier must be easily discernable, and this leaves it to a broad interpretation, and it comes up quite frequently. She said that APOC received recent complaints about board signs on the side of the road with "paid for by" identifiers that were placed on a file label. In essence, she explained, a person would have to stop their car, get out of the car, and actually approach the sign in order actually read any of the information. The current language in the bill would simply provide a better standard and more guidance for filers, she offered. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether APOC has promulgated regulations or established advisory opinions to provide a more detailed direction to campaigns as far as how to comply with the "easily discernable" standard. MS. HEBDEN answered that there is regulation that applies to the "paid for by" identifier, although it does not provide much more specificity. The regulation requires that it be visible, separate from the text of the communication, and be of sufficient size to be read by a viewer. 3:46:47 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked that if someone had a big sign by the side of the road and scribbled on a file label on the bottom corner the "paid for by" identifier, whether that file label "paid for by" identifier would be in violation of the standard that currently exists. MS. HEBDEN replied that that was a good question. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS offered that if someone filed a complaint about that sign, whether APOC would find it to be in violation. MS. HEBDEN responded that if the file label contained all of the correct language, "it very well could be considered substantially compliant and APOC would not find a violation. 3:47:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK requested clarification that she was saying that as a person is driving down the road, a person must be able to read the "paid for by" identifier, depending on the speed of the vehicle. MS. HEBDEN answered that that is just an example and she does not know that that is necessarily the standard. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to HB 47, Sec. 7, [AS 15.13.090(g), page 4, lines 28-29], which read as follows: (g) A "paid for by" identifier for a printed communication is clearly identified and easily discernible ... REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for clarification that that standard is unknown. MS. HEBDEN answered that currently, the standard is that it be "easily discernable." The language before the committee aims to add more specificity by setting a standard font size based on the size of the communication, she advised. 3:48:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said that he knows there are Alaska Department of Transportation (DOT) highway standard signs and depending upon the speed of the vehicle -- and those signs are pretty huge, for example, a stop sign, and the sign must be able to be seen from a certain distance. He asked whether it is really a concern for drivers to be able to see the "paid for by" identifier. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she echoes the same thoughts as Representative Tuck because if it is important to someone, and the information is on the sign, the person can get out of their car to look at the sign. She asked whether the committee has to micro-manage the font size, and answered, "I don't think so." REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP opined that the signs are not supposed to be placed within 600 feet of the right-of-way anyway, and he can't see that far, so he is not sure whether font size is a big issue. He asked whether that was in statute. MS. HEBDEN (audio difficulties) regulate the placement of the sign, only the content of the sign. She reiterated that the billboard was simply an example of the "paid for by" identifier questions as one of APOC's number one complaints. It is the "low-hanging fruit" that the public sees, and this is meant to benefit the filers, she advised. 3:50:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said that as Representative Knopp mentioned, signs are not supposed to be near the road, but everyone knows that they are. He said, "If this 10 percent rule, that if a sign is bigger than 2 feet by 3 feet, then the 'paid for by' can't be any smaller than 10 percent. So, I can see a big 4 by 8 sign that has 3 letters on it, 'JKT' each 3.5 feet, then the 'paid for by' has to be 10 percent of 3.5 feet with each font. That's pretty big." It is one thing if a person receives something in the mail but driving down the highway at 55 mph is another thing, he said. MS. HEBDEN replied that she understands that 10 percent of the sign might be big in certain cases. She reiterated that it is not necessarily the size of it, it is simply setting some sort of standard beyond "easily discernable." REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said that he noticed that the bill lists a font size for the smaller sign and commented that this all appears overly complicated. 3:52:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to HB 407, to delete Sec 7 in its entirety [page 4, lines 27-31 and page 5, lines 1-12]. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for purposes of discussion. 3:53:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP offered that he was unsure he could support a complete deletion of Sec. 7, if it removes any requirement for posting "paid for by" identifiers. Although, he said, he would support a conceptual amendment that deletes the 10 percent, as that is the actual issue. He added that he would support an amendment "if it was nominal, no smaller than two-inch letters" on the sign, and that deleting Sec. 7 in its entirety would remove that entire requirement. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX explained that Sec.7 is an entirely new section in the law and there is another section somewhere in the statute that requires the "paid for by" identifier. Therefore, removing this section will not open the door to various types of campaign literature with "paid for by" identifiers. Conceptual Amendment 1 removes micromanaging "this thing down to the enth degree," she explained. REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP offered his support if Representative LeDoux's statement could be verified. MS. HEBDEN stated that Representative LeDoux is correct, under current AS 15.13.090 "paid for by" is required, and Sec. 7 simply adds a new subsection clarifying "easily discernable." 3:55:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK commented that he understands why Sec. 7 was included in HB 407, in that there are probably many complaints that APOC receives and streamlining it for the agency would probably assist the agency. Although, he said, he is a bit leery on some of this language and referred to Sec. 7, AS 15.13.090(g)(1), page 4, lines 30-31, which read as follows: (1) smaller than 24 inches by 36 inches in size or that includes a video component, the "paid for by" identifier is REPRESENTATIVE TUCK commented that he was unsure how to get to 12 points on a video, and some of this language could be improved upon, so he supports Conceptual Amendment 1. He asked Ms. Hebden whether APOC has the authority to create a policy through regulation. MS. HEBDEN answered that APOC does have the authority through regulation. 3:56:51 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS withdrew his objection. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to HB 407 was adopted. 3:57:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2 to HB 407, and delete Sec. 8, which has the effect of returning to 7 days rather than 10 business days. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected. 3:57:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP offered concern regarding the ten business days requirement because by including the weekends, it totals two weeks. Yesterday, Ms. Hebden stated that APOC gives priority to time-sensitive requests, yet there is an amount of overtime that could be required when addressing these requests within seven days, he said. Ms. Hebden also mentioned that sometimes legal opinions and so forth are quite time-consuming and it puts her staff in somewhat of a bind, he said. 3:58:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested a compromise of seven business days as it may allow the agency enough time to respond to requests. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related that if she can get the vote, she'll take seven business days. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS responded that he would be amenable to seven business days because there is value in this section, and it gives APOC a bit more flexibility. For cleanliness of process, he asked whether Representative LeDoux would be comfortable withdrawing Conceptual Amendment 2 and offering a new Conceptual Amendment 3. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX withdrew Conceptual Amendment 2. 3:59:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3 to HB 407, [AS 15.13.374(c), page 5, line 14], delete "10 business" and insert "7 business." CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for purposes of discussion. 3:59:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said that while he realizes this is a policy call, APOC came to the legislature in good faith with some cost- saving measures. He reminded the committee that the employees at APOC work hard, especially during campaign season, and are swamped with all sorts of inquiries that include: investigations, reporting, answering to the public, and so forth. He commented that ten business days is reasonable because when people run for office, typically they have a campaign plan and hopefully they will present their questions "way ahead of time." Although, he said, if it is the will of the committee to go with seven business days, he said he guesses that is a good compromise. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that seven business days may be the sweet spot for the committee. 4:01:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked Ms. Hebden to offer her comments and pointed out that APOC's staff has been cut. MS. HEBDEN responded that she would be happy with seven business days because she appreciates this legislation moving forward. Those extra few days would help to provide more time to perform a little more research as far as performing a thorough analysis of any issues and possibly help the Department of Law (DOL) as well, she said. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK suggested that if Conceptual Amendment 3 is adopted and the legislation moves to the next committee, that Ms. Hebden calculate the average amount of employee hours spent per inquiry in order to offer the House Finance Committee more workload information when determining whether seven business days would actually help APOC as much as it would prefer. 4:02:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL noted that the committee had gone back and forth on the number of days and related that seven business days could be nine days total with the weekend, or it could be simply ten calendar days. REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP related that he would not support Representative Wool in that request because somewhere along the line the interpretation will get back to ten business days and APOC will be back at 14 days. There will be no grey areas if the committee is specific with seven business days going forward. 4:03:51 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS withdrew his objection. There being no objection to changing 10 business days to seven business day, Conceptual Amendment 3 to HB 407 was adopted. 4:04:16 PM The committee took a brief at-ease. 4:04:41 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced he had an amendment which would be distributed to committee members and explained that HB 158 is sponsored by Representative Eastman, which this committee heard last year. Basically, he explained, it deletes statutes that APOC is not currently following, and he recently realized that the committee had heard this APOC cleanup bill, and that this bill is "sitting in Finance." 4:05:38 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 4, labeled 30- LS1525\D.1, Bullard, 4/4/18, which read as follows: Page 1, line 1, following "An Act": Insert "relating to the location of offices for  the Alaska Public Offices Commission and the locations  at which certain statements and reports filed with the  commission are made available;" Page 1, following line 8: Insert a new bill section to read:  "* Section 1. AS 15.13.020(j) is amended to read: (j) The commission shall establish a central [AN] office [, WHICH MAY BE CALLED A REGIONAL OFFICE, IN EACH SENATE DISTRICT IN THE STATE] to keep on file for public inspection copies of all reports filed with the commission [BY CANDIDATES FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE AND BY CANDIDATES FOR LEGISLATIVE OFFICE IN THAT DISTRICT; HOWEVER, WHERE ONE MUNICIPALITY CONTAINS MORE THAN ONE HOUSE DISTRICT, ONLY ONE COMMISSION OFFICE SHALL BE ESTABLISHED IN THAT MUNICIPALITY. THE REGIONAL OFFICE SHALL MAKE ALL FORMS AND PERTINENT MATERIAL AVAILABLE TO CANDIDATES. ALL REPORTS SHALL BE FILED BY CANDIDATES, GROUPS, AND INDIVIDUALS DIRECTLY WITH THE COMMISSION'S CENTRAL DISTRICT OFFICE. THE COMMISSION SHALL ENSURE THAT COPIES OF ALL REPORTS BY STATEWIDE AND LEGISLATIVE CANDIDATES IN EACH SENATE DISTRICT ARE FORWARDED PROMPTLY TO THAT DISTRICT OR REGIONAL OFFICE]." Page 1, line 9: Delete "Section 1" Insert "Sec. 2" Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 5, following line 17: Insert new bill sections to read:  "* Sec. 10. AS 24.45.091 is amended to read: Sec. 24.45.091. Publication of reports. Copies of the statements and reports filed under this chapter shall be made available to the public at the commission's central office and on the commission's  Internet website [, THE OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, THE LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE LIBRARY OF THE LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY, AND AT THE COMMISSION'S DISTRICT OFFICES PRESCRIBED IN AS 15.13.020(j)] as soon as practicable after each reporting period.  * Sec. 11. AS 24.45.111(b) is amended to read: (b) The commission shall preserve the statements and reports required to be filed under this chapter for a period of six years from the date of filing. Copies [IF THE COMMISSION'S CENTRAL OFFICE IS NOT IN THE STATE CAPITAL, COPIES] of all statements and reports filed under this chapter shall be maintained in the commission's central [AN] office and be made  available on the commission's Internet website [ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION IN THE STATE CAPITAL OR IN THE OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR]. " Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK objected. 4:05:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK remarked that Amendment 4 to HB 407 is actually HB 158, and he was unsure there was ever an amendment deadline on this bill. He requested an explanation of Amendment 4, [HB 158]. 4:06:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE DAVID EASTMAN, Alaska State Legislature, explained that contained within the statutes are certain statutory requirements for APOC to accomplish, except the legislature never provided the funding. Therefore, he pointed out, it is not within APOC's means to accomplish those requirements and short of a significant increase in funding from this legislature, APOC will continue to not accomplish those requirements. Amendment 4 removes the requirement that APOC maintain an office in each of the Senate districts, and the amendment does not result in the closure of any offices because APOC has not followed that particular statute. It is not a physical change; it is a change to the statute. There is no reference to using the internet currently in statute and Amendment 4 adds a reference that the legislature does want APOC to have a website, he said. 4:07:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP surmised that Representative Eastman's intent is, "the commission shall establish a central office" but the language is not specific as to where that office will be located. He asked whether it will be one APOC office or multiple offices somewhere. He further asked whether APOC currently maintains a central office in Juneau or Anchorage where most of this retention is done that is mentioned in the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that the Amendment 4 reads that APOC should at least have one office, and it currently maintains an Anchorage office which would satisfy that requirement. There is not a statutory requirement as to where that APOC office should be located, and if APOC decided to move to Fairbanks at some point, it could. He added that the amendment does not add any new requirements; it simply removes the requirement that APOC maintain more than one office. 4:09:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP surmised that the amendment removes the requirement that APOC have an office in every Senate district. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that Representative Knopp was correct. REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked that if APOC currently maintained a Juneau and a Fairbanks office, whether it would require the closure of those offices so APOC would have only a central office. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that this amendment simply requires that APOC maintain at least one office, if it wanted more offices and the legislature appropriated the funds, it could open more offices. 4:09:45 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Hebden to comment on HB 158 and Amendment 4, and whether APOC would characterize this as basic statute cleanup by bringing those statutes into alignment with APOC's practices. MS. HEBDEN described HB 158 as a statutory cleanup that would codify APOC's current agency practices. It is not interpreted as requiring a closure of an office, but rather to simply not have an office in each Senate district, which it does not at this point, she said. 4:10:57 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS deferred to the will of the committee on this as it was a "late breaking idea" on his part to have some statutory cleanup performed while a vehicle was available. 4:11:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL commented that Amendment 4 will "take APOC off the state's most wanted list of breaking the rules" because APOC does not currently maintain an office in every Senate district. This amendment "would sort of cleanup their act a little bit," he said. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked that at the time APOC was created whether it ever had an office in every Senate district. MS. HEBDEN opined that in the early years it contracted with local municipal clerk's offices to provide APOC forms and that type of assistance to filers. Given the rise in technology, most of the APOC filings take place online and it is not necessary to have forms on hand for filers, she explained. REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP advised that he will support Amendment 4. 4:12:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK removed his objection on Amendment. There being no objection, Amendment 4 was adopted. 4:12:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK noted that he may offer an amendment on the floor of the House of Representatives or in the House Finance Committee, regarding a provision where when "you get down to the 24-hour reporting," if there are any contributions over $250, a candidate must report that amount. He opined that there is an anomaly there, whereas if someone is doing an "in-kind contribution" to their own campaign ... he opined that the reason for that $250 report is to see any undue influence taking place at the very end of the campaign. Except, he pointed out, campaign limitations are not placed on the candidates themselves, they can donate any amount to their campaign, so how does a person unduly influence themselves. He said the potential amendment would be with regard to when a candidate has an in-kind contribution or even a donation to a candidate's own campaign, that as to the 24-hour reporting period, it is not necessary to report that donation. 4:14:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether a candidate could make a donation to their own campaign within a certain period of time. MS. HEBDEN answered that during the 33 days prior to the election, the candidate is limited to contributing no more than $5,000 to their own campaign. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that a candidate can donate to their own campaign up until the very end, the $5,000. MS. HEBDEN answered that Representative Ledoux is correct. 4:15:38 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 407. After ascertaining no one wished to testify, he closed public testimony on HB 407. 4:15:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL moved to report HB 407, labeled 30-LS1525\D, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 407(STA) was moved from committee.