Legislature(2025 - 2026)GRUENBERG 120
03/27/2025 03:15 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB58 | |
| HB35 | |
| HB16 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 58 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 16-CAMPAIGN FINANCE, CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
4:32:17 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 16, "An Act amending campaign contribution
limits for state and local office; directing the Alaska Public
Offices Commission to adjust campaign contribution limits for
state and local office once each decade beginning in 2031; and
relating to campaign contribution reporting requirements."
4:32:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CALVIN SCHRAGE, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, presented HB 16. He said that this was an act to
amend campaign contribution limits for state and local offices.
Pertaining to the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), the
bill would adjust campaign contribution limits once every decade
beginning in 2031 as well as contribution reporting
requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE explained that in 2024, a ballot petition
was certified after a grassroots effort gathered nearly 30,000
signatures from Alaska voters and met the 7 percent threshold in
32 of Alaska's 40 House districts; this puts the ballot measure
in front of voters in 2026 if the Alaska Legislature did not
pass similar legislation. He explained that HB 16 matches the
ballot initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE remarked that Alaska has historically had
some of the strongest and most effective campaign finance laws
in the nation, which serve to promote better accountability and
trust in elections and elected officials. He said that in the
past, Alaskans have shown their support for fair and reasonable
limits, including a 2006 initiative that passed with 73 percent
support. He said that unfortunately, in 2021 the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals struck down Alaska's statutory campaign
contribution limits, opening state and local elections to the
threat of unlimited political contributions, from anywhere in
the country.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE stated that HB 16 reinstates fair,
reasonable, and constitutional campaign contribution limits,
adjusted to Alaska's consumer price index moving forward,
ensuring that these limits remain constitutional. He remarked
that HB 16 would move Alaska's campaign contribution limits to a
per-election basis as opposed to a per-year basis and would
increase individual statutory limit from $500 per year to $2,000
per election cycle. Furthermore, it would change group limits
from $1,000 per year to $4,000 per election cycle. Lastly, it
would direct APOC to adjust contribution limits related to
inflation.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE stated that these changes follow guidance
laid out by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and United States
Supreme Court precedent while upholding the desire of Alaska
voters for fair and reasonable contribution limits.
4:35:40 PM
AMANDA NDEMO, Staff, Representative Calvin Schrage, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Schrage, prime sponsor,
gave a PowerPoint presentation of HB 16 [hard copy included in
the committee file]. She began by providing an overview of the
history of political contributions in Alaska, highlighting key
legislative actions, legal challenges, and reforms from 1974 to
today. She remarked that Alaska has a long history of
regulating political contributions, balancing the need to
prevent corruption with the constitutional right to free speech.
However, recent court decisions have significantly altered the
campaign finance landscape. She explained that starting in
1974, Alaska adopted its first significant campaign finance
regulations in response to national concerns over political
corruption. Alaska's statutory individual contribution limits
began at $1,000. Adjusted for inflation, this amount would be
$5,303 today. This limit was in effect until 1995. These
limits were changed in 1996 to $500 following a citizens'
initiative after the legislature's reaction to a citizens'
initiative aimed at reducing these limits. Adjusted for
inflation, this amount would be $933 today. In 2003, the
legislature passed Senate Bill 119, which raised the individual
contribution limit back to $1,000, approximately $1,638 today.
In response to concerns about political corruption, Alaska
voters reaffirmed a $500 limit in 2006 through Ballot Measure 1.
This measure passed overwhelmingly with 74 percent support.
This limit remained in effect for over a decade but was never
adjusted for inflation, making it one of the strictest in the
country. This limit was later overturned in 2021 with the
decision in Thompson v. Hebdon.
MS. NDEMO said that this case was initially brought forward in
2015 in federal district court. David Thompson and others filed
a lawsuit challenging the $500 individual contribution limit as
a violation of the First Amendment. The lower court upheld the
contribution limits, ruling that they were narrowly tailored to
prevent corruption. The plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth
Circuit Court in 2018. The Ninth Circuit Court upheld the
district court's ruling, maintaining that Alaska's strict limits
were sufficiently justified and closely drawn to a state
interest, with preventing corruption as sufficient
justification. The case was then petitioned and heard by the
U.S. Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit's decision was vacated
for reconsideration, with the U.S. Supreme Court citing Randall
v. Sorrell, a 2006 decision on Vermont's $400 contribution limit
that was determined to be unconstitutional.
MS. NDEMO explained that the importance of this case is the
five-factor test, which provides guidance on whether states'
contribution limits violate the First Amendment rights of
individuals and political organizations. More specifically, the
five-factor test asks: whether the limits are so low that they
risk disadvantaging challengers compared to incumbents; whether
the limits are unduly restrictive on the ability of political
parties to support their candidates; whether volunteer services
or expenses are considered contributions that would count toward
the limit; whether the limits are adjusted for inflation; and
whether there is a special justification warranting a
contribution limit so low or so restrictive that it is based on
a valid government interest. Of these five factors, Alaska
failed to meet this threshold because contribution limits were
too low and had not been adjusted for inflation since being
initially implemented.
MS. NDEMO said that in 2021, APOC issued an advisory opinion
following the court's decision. They set an annual limit of
$1,500 for contributions from an individual to a candidate and a
$3,000 limit for a group-to-candidate contribution. These
numbers were based on the limits that were established by the
Alaska legislature in 2003, which was a $1,000 contribution
limit for an individual to a candidate but increased for
inflation. She said APOC's five commissioners voted on whether
to accept the staff's advisory opinion. Three out of five voted
in support; however, the staff advisory opinion was not accepted
because they failed to get the required four votes. Alaska
currently has no individual-to-candidate limits, out-of-state
contribution limits, or individual-to-group limits. This has
left Alaska and local elections open to unlimited and outside
funding.
MS. NDEMO explained HB 16 aims to offer a balanced approach to
the reinstatement of campaign contribution limits in Alaska.
Furthermore, HB 16 seeks to modify the existing limits on
campaign contributions for state and local offices by
establishing the contribution limits. It also establishes
contribution limits based on an election cycle, ensuring
consistent limits regardless of election timing or candidate
entry date. Additionally, it directs APOC to adjust these
limits every decade starting in 2031 to account for inflation.
Shown in the slide is a summary of the proposed contribution
limits. Individual contribution limits were previously set to
$500; adjusted for inflation, this is $751 today. The new
limits would be $2,000. An individual's contribution limit to a
political party and a non-political party's contribution to a
group, non-group entity, or political party would be set at
$5,000. This has not changed and was not an issue with the
court. A non-political party to an individual is set at $4,000.
A non-group entity to a non-group entity was set at $1,000 in
2006, which is $1,501 today. The new limit would be $4,000. A
group to join a joint campaign for governor and lieutenant
governor is $2,000, which is $3,003 today. The new limit would
be $8,000. This is just a simple infographic of those changes.
This slide provides a visual of the five-factor test from
Randall v. Sorrell and how HB 16 implements those specific
questions that were asked by the court. Overall, this
initiative brings Alaska's individual-to-candidate and
individual-to-group political contribution limits in compliance
with the Thompson v. Hebdon court decision. It re-establishes
limits that Alaska voters' support.
4:44:14 PM
CHAIR CARRICK said that review of the sectional analysis wasn't
necessary and asked committee if they had questions.
4:44:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND asked whether these limits apply to all
races including the local assembly, school board, and both state
and federal elections. He was unsure whether the bill covered
all elections that are managed by the state.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE responded that federal elections are
governed through federal law and the proposed legislation was
focused on state elections including the governor's race, the
House, Senate, and municipal races.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND asked for clarification whether the
proposed bill would comply with the citizens' initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE responded that the proposed bill mirrors
exactly what is certified to appear on the 2026 ballot.
CHAIR CARRICK said the committee would hear invited testimony.
4:46:39 PM
SHARMAN HALEY began her invited testimony by giving her
background as a now retired policy analyst and researcher,
including time spent with Legislative Legal and Research
Services and the Institute of Social and Economic Research. She
stated that she has been working on this issue for about 10
years. She said that currently she was involved in work with
Alaska Move to Amend, Citizens Against Money in Politics,
American Promise, as well as with ordinary citizens and
politicians who care about this issue.
MS. HALEY said that the proposed bill should not be
controversial and that it had solid support amongst Alaska
constituents across the political spectrum. She explained that
the bill contained the same language as the citizens' initiative
that would be on the 2026 ballot, but there is hope that the
legislature would pass the legislation this session and save the
effort necessary to put forth a ballot measure. She remarked
that the bill was carefully crafted to conform to the five
criteria dictated by the Ninth Circuit Court that struck down
previous law; any "gray areas" that might be grounds for legal
challenge have been removed from the bill. She noted that it is
a politically solid bill because Alaskans have demonstrated
their support for strong campaign finance laws.
MS. HALEY explained that the old campaign finance also began as
a citizen initiative and was enacted by the legislature in 1996.
It was one of the strictest in the country, with contribution
limits of $500. She said that the legislature felt that this
was inadequate because some candidates were required to do a lot
of fundraising. She said that in 2003 limits were increased to
$1,000, but voters stepped up in 2006 and passed another
initiative bringing campaign limits back to $500. This 2006
initiative passed with a 73 percent approval rating. She said
that the initiative passed with a solid majority in every single
district of the state.
MS. HALEY explained that Alaskans want strong campaign finance
limits to protect the balance of power and limit the
disproportionate influence and corrupting power of big money in
elections. She said that in 2020, there was a poll that
illustrated that 71 percent of Alaskans would support a U.S.
constitutional amendment restoring full authority to set
reasonable limits on political spending in elections, including
independent expenditures. The court in Citizens United said
that it could not be limited. As a result of that poll, support
for a constitutional amendment restoring authority to limit
independent expenditures was strong across both political
parties and independents.
MS. HALEY said she probably did not need to restate the limits
in the bill because the committee already had that. She said
she would have chosen a lower limit than $2,000 and that she had
run the numbers a couple of years earlier, but there had been a
lot of inflation since then, and she accepted the political
judgment of the sponsors that $2,000 was a safer number
politically. She stated that the two big improvements in the
bill over the old law were that the limit would be per election
cycle and not per year - because savvy people used to double dip
in December and January - and that it would automatically adjust
the limits for inflation every 10 years, which was one of the
requirements from the Ninth Circuit Court. She concluded by
saying that she and her fellow Alaskans supported HB 16 and
called on the committee to support it as well.
4:52:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that he was interested in definitions
and whether there was a difference between a group and a non-
group.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE responded that he would have to follow up
with an answer.
MS. NDEMO responded that definitions for this could be found in
Alaska Statute (AS) 15.13.400.
4:53:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MOORE asked Representative Schrage why he did not
take this opportunity to make APOC more accountable and it
seemed like the commission needed more transparent direction
through statute. She said that most legislators she knew would
like this to come from the commission and asked whether this
additional step would make the proposed bill more convoluted.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked for additional clarification
regarding the question.
REPRESENTATIVE MOORE clarified that the question is whether
there was a reason not to take the opportunity to overhaul APOC
protocols when drafting the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE provided clarification of the history of
why the bill was proposed. He said that efforts began after the
court struck down previous limits and the initial approach was
to fix the hole created in Alaska's campaign finance structure
following the court ruling. He said that the intent was to take
the "lightest touch, most straightforward approach" to restoring
campaign contribution limits, which is what the proposed bill
would accomplish. He said that he was happy to discuss the
mechanics associated with this process.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that while he has not been involved
in politics for a substantial amount of time, he frequently
hears various concerns about APOC. These concerns regard
funding and staffing limitations to why they cannot proactively
enforce campaign finance laws. He said that the funding aspect
is a policy decision for the state. He reiterated that his
approach was just to address the lack of limits and
enforceability of the mechanics that APOC currently has. He
said that in his experience talking with legislators and those
involved in campaigns, there is not a consistent view of how
APOC should be structured. He said that there was concern with
some people giving APOC enforcement mechanisms due to its
potential weaponization as an agency.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE commented that people are comfortable
with what they know today, which is a complaint-based system,
where if someone notices something odd, they file a complaint;
this is what triggers enforcement and investigation. He said
that the legislature could consider whether they wanted APOC to
have enforcement capability, but it was something that he was
reluctant to do because the primary goal is to take care of the
shortcomings in campaign finance. He suggested APOC reform is
something that could be done in the future.
4:58:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether Representative Schrage knew
what the proportional support was for campaign contribution
regarding the citizens' initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE responded that with the ballot initiative
it is not possible to ascertain what percentage of people
support the initiative since the objective is to simply collect
the minimum number of signatures, both as an aggregate and a
minimum across several districts in the state. He said that
while the signatures required to initiate a ballot measure were
met, it does not necessarily speak to the level of support that
exists in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that given recent polling in the
past couple weeks, it is deduced that support is upwards of 65
percent. He said looking at other polls and some of the ballot
initiatives that his staff walked through, support has remained
well over 60 if not even above 75 percent support. He said
there was a "strong appetite" for this change to occur in
Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that with regard to limits, he
wanted to provide a background to campaign contribution limits.
He said that as the presentation indicated, the individual
campaign limits have gone from $500 to $2,000, and while this
seems like a considerable jump, it pertains to each election
cycle as opposed to an annual limit. He said that in the old
system, one could collect $500 twice for a total of $1,000 per
individual contribution, now it would be $2,000 - double the
limit. He said that the old limits did not account for
inflation, and with this consideration, the limit would be about
$1,500 per election cycle. He said that $2,000 was selected
because previous limits were struck down in part for being too
low; the $2,000 limit is intended to reduce the limits being
tossed out by courts again.
5:00:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that APOC needs a "haircut." He said
that if he had it his way, he would get rid of APOC entirely and
adopt the Federal Exchange Commission (FEC) limits. He
recognized that once "Pandora's box" gets opened, things get
complicated fast. He highlighted the enormous problem Alaska
has with outside money. He understood Citizens United but said
the reality is that Alaska "is a cheap date." He said that the
state has roughly 530,000 voters and, for only a few million
dollars, outside interests can reach voters multiple times. He
said this money overwhelmingly targets ballot measures, such as
this ballot measure.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that it is frustrating that Alaska is
constrained by the courts. The citizens said $500, then the
legislature said $1,000, then the citizens reinstated the said
$500, then the court said no to everything. He said that it may
be wise to start listening to the citizens. He said that Alaska
voters he spoke with were extremely upset about "dark money"
coming into Alaska to experiment with state affairs such as the
election system. He said whether someone supported ranked
choice voting or not, Alaska is the "guinea pig."
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE responded that he shares the same
frustration. He said that as an Alaskan who strongly believes
in campaign contribution limits, he was deeply frustrated by the
Citizens United ruling. He opined that it was a mistake or at
the very least, a problematic decision that limits Alaska's
right to self-determination. As previously noted, the decision
places strict limits on what states are allowed to do. He said
that Citizens United established several principles, but one of
the most consequential is that contribution limits can only be
justified for a very narrow set of reasons. Today, the only
legally valid justification is preventing the actuality or
appearance of corruption. He said that previously states could
rely on other rationale such as self-determination, but these
arguments were no longer available. He said that since
corruption is now the sole permissible justification, out-of-
state donations cannot be banned. He said that as a policymaker
he could not claim that an out-of-state contribution poses any
greater risk of corrupting an elected official than an in-state
donor. As a result, Citizens United effectively prohibits
states from limiting out-of-state donations to local elections.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that he has worked with legislators
to explore creative new approaches to this problem, but so far,
he has not believed that a solution has been identified that
would survive legal scrutiny. He shared Representative McCabe's
concerns regarding outside money. He said that he was
interested in pursuing a resolution urging Congress to address
this issue directly; this is the only path to restoring
meaningful limits on out-of-state donors.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that while out-of-state spending is
a serious problem, there were at least a few mitigating factors
worth consideration. He noted that when one outside group pours
money into Alaska, an opposing group is able, though not always,
to rally resources and provide a counterweight in the same media
market. An independent expenditure group faces a disadvantage
that candidates do not: dramatically higher advertising rates.
He said that it may cost $100 for campaign to run a mailer or
advertisement ("ad"), whereas independent expenditure groups
might pay $700 to $1,000 for the same placement. He said that
it does not solve the problem but blunts some of the impact of
outside spending.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that he was trying to understand how
outside money would function under this HB 16. As he read it,
outside contributions would be limited for candidates, which
would mean that someone from outside the state could not
contribute directly to a candidates' campaign, even though
independent expenditures would still be allowed. He asked
whether ballot measures could be treated the same as candidates
and said that campaign contribution limits apply to state and
local offices. It would not stop independent expenditure groups
from advertising, but it would prevent contributing directly to
the ballot measure committees themselves. He said that he was
unsure how this would play out legally, but looking at the same
problem, it feels unconscionable that certain groups can pour
$20 million from outside the state trying to oppose people that
might have $100,000 or less. He said the imbalance is
staggering.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that he is happy to explore this
issue but would want to ensure that solutions would pass legal
scrutiny.
5:07:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said that like Representative McCabe,
she was appalled by the amount of outside money flowing into
Alaska. She asked Representative Schrage, if the bill passed,
whether these rules would be enforced for the 2026 election
cycle. She said that she agreed with the inflation-proofing
associated with the proposed bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE responded that if the bill were passed
and signed into law, then it would be in effect for the next
campaign cycle. He said that this was something that would need
to be monitored as the bill progresses. He noted that if the
bill did not pass until the upcoming legislature [2026], then
the effective dates may require adjustment.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said that the $2,000 individual
contribution per cycle seems high, but in her district, five of
the communities are only reachable by vehicle after she gets
there, which requires a $700 round-trip ticket from her home.
She said that she has a lot of low-income areas that can't
contribute, even if they wanted to. She said that despite the
contribution limit seeming high, only a few members of her
district could realistically contribute that much.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that it had been hard work to come
up with a contribution limit that is legally defensible but
reasonably low. He reiterated that the goal is to match the
intent of Alaskans who have made it clear that they want a low
contribution limit. He said that Alaskans are sensitive to
issues surrounding corruption and distrust of election
officials. He raised concern about contributions' abilities to
influence a legislator's role and the issue of "indebtedness."
5:11:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND asked whether the committee still planned
on public testimony for the proposed bill on the upcoming
Saturday since he had interested testifiers.
CHAIR CARRICK affirmed that the proposed bill would be brought
back for the upcoming Saturday committee meeting.
[HB 16 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 16 Version A Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 3/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB0016A.pdf |
HSTA 3/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 16 Version A Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HSTA 3/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 16 Fiscal Note DOA-APOC-3-21-2025.pdf |
HSTA 3/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 16 Support LTR Alaska Voter Hub.pdf |
HSTA 3/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 16 Written Testimony Rec'd 3-26-25.pdf |
HSTA 3/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 16 Presentation 3-27-25 UPDATED.pdf |
HSTA 3/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| CS HB 35 Sponsor Statement - Version G 3.13.25.pdf |
HSTA 3/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| CS HB 35 Sectional Analysis - Version G 3.13.25.pdf |
HSTA 3/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| CS HB 35 CRA Ver G.pdf |
HSTA 3/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| CS HB 35 - Version G Explanation of Changes 3.13.25.pdf |
HSTA 3/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| HB 35 Presentation ARP 3-27-25.pdf |
HSTA 3/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 35 |