Legislature(2025 - 2026)GRUENBERG 120
03/29/2025 01:00 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 58 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 16-CAMPAIGN FINANCE, CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
1:11:42 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."
1:12:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CALVIN SCHRAGE, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, reintroduced HB 16.
1:12:50 PM
CHAIR CARRICK opened public testimony on HB 16. Each testifier
was limited to three minutes.
1:13:17 PM
BEVERLY CHURCHILL, Volunteer, Alaska Move to Amend, testified in
support of HB 16. Ms. Churchill stated that she has been
fighting to regulate campaign finance for 15 years. Drawing on
her experience of advocacy, she stated that it is known via
surveys that a majority of Alaska voters support the regulation
of campaign contributions. During the previous summer, Ms.
Churchill stated, she collected signatures for Ballot Measure 1
[2026] and that spoke with voters from all over the state and
received signatures from both progressives and conservatives
alike. She continued as follows:
The conservatives were upset that Peltola was getting
PAC money from outside. The liberals were upset that
Dunleavy was getting money from his wealthy brother.
I mean, I heard ... from all different ... stripes of
voters. The point is ... many and most states have a
law that regulates this, and ours was struck down, but
not because it was unconstitutional, but because it
was considered unreasonable, and it was very low, one
of the lowest in the nation. It's time to restore
something.
MS. CHURHILL further elaborated that lots of people were
concerned about wealthy and corporate donors and Political
Action Committees (PACs). Ms. Churchill stated that while under
current precedence, the State of Alaska did not have the legal
right to regulate campaign finance, the state could endorse a
constitutional amendment to regulate campaign finance on a
national level. Ms. Churchill also referred to the then current
Wisconsin Supreme Court race, saying, "Right now, Elon Musk is
pouring money into Wisconsin over a ... judge ... election
because he is unhappy about a certain law they have in
Wisconsin. This is just unconscionable." While Ms. Churchill
said she understood that constitutional amendments were not
currently being considered by the committee, she urged the
committee to consider amendments and other bills relating to
campaign finance and voting and stated that the state needed to
be strong with such actions. Overall, she testified in support
of HB 16.
1:16:48 PM
MIKE COONS, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 16.
He read a prepared statement [included in the committee file],
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
My name is Mike Coons from Wasilla and speaking for
myself.
I oppose HB 16.
First and most importantly, this is in violation of
our 1st Amendment rights. This violates the Citizens
United and Thompson vs Hebdon Supreme Court and 9th
Circuit rulings on this issue.
Second, what is a nongoup entity? Will this disallow
me to support a candidate along with like minded
people in an informal group?
Third, this does nothing as to outside organizations
whom out spent 1000 to 1 the repeal Rank Choice Voting
petition. Does this allow outside of Alaska groups
and/or individuals to treat our elections as a cheap
date and contribute thousands to say the Senator from
District H?
Fourth, this violates our right to support
organizations, including the Alaska Republican Party
whom then help conservative candidates. How do the
Democrat voters feel about being restricted in their
contributions to the Democrat Party?
Lastly, this does nothing as to the mega donors for
Federal elections. Those Federal elections are for our
House seat and two Senators, all of whom are directly
responsible to support Alaskans and all of Alaska,
same as this legislature.
In my opinion the sponsors of this bill are afraid of
people like Elon Musk, the Republican National
Committee, the Alaska Republican Party, whom has a
much stronger leader, as well as others with deep
pockets, both in and outside of Alaska. The sponsors
of this bill are willing to violate the 1st Amendment
rights of all Alaskans to stop the Republican party
effectively winning seats, yet potentially leaving
open the Democrats to contribute without any
restrictions for their candidates and causes. If not,
I am sure Democrat donors will not be happy with this!
The Executive Order by President Trump on elections
does far more for election integrity than what this
slim Democrat/RINO majority has ever done or willing
to do!
1:19:29 PM
KEVIN MORFORD, President, Alaska Move to Amend, testified in
support of HB 16. As president of Alaska Move to Amend, he
stated that his organization advocates for the rights of all
Alaska, is an all-volunteer organization, and advocates for
"good public policy regarding political issues in Alaska." He
further stated that the only stake that his organization has in
campaign finance limits is that "we all want a fair election
system that does not allow the voices of a powerful few to be
amplified with money to the point where ordinary citizens are
irrelevant to the political process." Thus, Mr. Morford stated
that his organization is in strong support of HB 16, as the bill
is "an important and necessary first step towards equalizing the
ability of ordinary citizens to be heard in political discourse
in Alaska." This is in part due to HB 16 being identical to
Ballot Measure 1 [2026] which was supported by Alaska Move to
Amend, which collected signatures for said proposition.
Enacting the bill, Mr. Morford argued, was essential so that the
law would be in effect for the 2026 election.
MR. MORFORD stated that while Alaskans have had a long and
consistent history of supporting campaign finance limits, Alaska
only lost prior campaign finance limits because of a decision
th
made by the 9 Circuit Court of Appeals [referring to the
Thompson v. Hebdon case]. Mr. Morford stated that HB 16 has
been formulated with previous court rulings in mind, and though
it doesn't solve all problems, it takes "an important step
toward limiting the amount of influence that can be purchased
with donations to campaign elections." Mr. Morford stated that
certain limits outside the scope of the bill included
independent expenditure limits, which are due to current
constitutional law and Supreme Court rulings on the issue
[referring to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission].
Thus, according to Mr. Morford, such expenditures would need
constitutional amendments to address. However, Mr. Morford
stated that such rulings "should not stop us from doing what we
can now to ... solve the problems that we can." Thus, he urged
the committee to move HB 16 out of committee so that the bill
could be referred to the House Finance Committee and later a
full vote on the House floor.
1:22:39 PM
FRANK BOX, Volunteer, Citizens Against Money in Politics,
testified in support of HB 16. Mr. Box stated that people from
all political stripes he met while volunteering said there was
too much money in politics. During his time volunteering for
the organization, he talked to people of "all political
stripes," the vast majority of which said there was "too much
money in politics. Mr. Box stated that even the people on the
right agree that there is too much money in politics. While HB
16 would not address dark money, "it's a good first start."
Thus, Mr. Box urged the committee to "pass it on to ... the next
step."
1:24:28 PM
MITCHELL ROTH, representing self, testified in support of HB 16.
Mr. Roth stated that the bill is based on Ballot Measure 1
[2026]. However, if the legislature acted sooner, it would have
an opportunity to strengthen campaign finance laws by enacting
HB 16. He stated that his experience of gathering signatures
was like those described in the testimonies of Ms. Churchill,
Mr. Box, and Mr. Morford, expressing that voters from all
parties in fact were really upset about campaign expenditures.
Mr. Roth also stated that many people he met while collecting
signatures didn't know campaign finance limits existed for 16
years and were effective. He noted there has been a dramatic
th
change since the 2022 Election, when the 9 circuit court of
appeals ruled that the limits were much too low because they
hadn't been adjusted in 16 years and money poured into all the
elections, with no sign of slowing down.
MR. ROTH said that enacting this legislation would provide some
control over limits to campaign contributions. While Mr. Roth
acknowledged that there are "ways for a person to get around
these limits if a person really wants to do that," HB 16 would
allow for some level of tracking where campaign contributions
came from. He cited the ranked choice voting campaign as an
example of a campaign that was able to skirt regulations on
campaign finance. Thus Mr. Roth urged the committee to pass HB
16 out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation.
1:27:21 PM
LOUIS THEISS, representing self, testified in support of HB 16.
He stated that he has been a modest donor to political campaigns
throughout the last 25 years or so. He said that while
campaigns themselves were very expensive, they often "wastes a
lot of a candidate's time" as the candidate is spending much of
their time raising money, rather than being able to meet with
their constituents about the issues. He argued that tying a
limit on campaign donation to account for inflation seems "very
sensible and democratic." He added that what he opposes is "no
limits at all" for campaign contributions. He further stated
that Alaska is a small state where it's easier for wealthy
donors to have decisive impacts on elections that [by
contributing sums] dilute his little $100 contribution. He
expressed support for elections and ballot initiatives that are
decided by "a plurality of voters rather than the wealth of
special interests," thus allowing for locally supported
candidates and ballot initiatives to succeed rather than those
supported by outside groups. He thus urged HB 16 to be passed
out of committee "in fairness to all the small people" with a
"good recommendation for the next step."
1:29:36 PM
MERCEDES ARCINIEGA, Alaska Public Interest Research Group,
testified in support of HB 16. Ms. Arciniega testified that HB
16 would level the playing field for all Alaskans. Under
current Alaska Public Office Commission (APOC) rules, she
argued, Alaska had no limits on campaign contributions when it
came to individuals and groups both within and outside of Alaska
and thus left Alaska elections with "vulnerable to unfair and
extreme unrestrictive and external funding." She further stated
without any limits in place, the election system in Alaska was
"unprotected from corruption and from the outside influence of
wealthy special interests." Both historically and with 2006
ballot initiative results, Alaskans have shown that prioritizing
financial equity has been of paramount importance, Ms. Arciniega
argued. However, after such limitations were overturned by
courts in cases like Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission and Thompson v. Hebdon, APOC "strongly suggested the
legislature to act, and to prioritize state campaign finance law
to align with the will of the voters." Ms. Arciniega stated
that now is the moment for the legislature to act in a manner
that honors Alaskan's wishes by ensuring their values are
reflected in state law. Further, Ms. Arciniega stated that the
10-year inflation adjustments proposed in the bill would make
the intention stronger and lead to a more "sustainable and long-
term framework." She urged HB 16 to be passed out of committee
and to be enshrined into law.
1:32:13 PM
LEON JAIMES, representing self, testified in support of HB 16.
He stated, "Our government was supposed to be by and for people
and not by and for the billionaires." He stated that HB 16
would help ensure that candidates can't be bought by the highest
bidder, and that they have...a stronger interest in "campaigning
for their constituents instead of with outside groups that have
more money than Alaskans together can raise." He urged that HB
16 be moved out of committee with a recommendation to pass the
bill.
1:33:34 PM
JAN CAROLYN HARDY, State President, American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Retirees,
testified in support of HB 16. She stated that the lack of
campaign contribution limits has created a new opportunity for
special access, tax breaks, and undue influence by the wealthy.
She opined "One need only look at the current situation in
Washington to see that practice is in effect." She emphasized
the need to get big money out of politics. She stated, "Every
voter has one vote, but when that vote is colored by the size of
the contribution, that is when one vote speaks louder than the
other."
MS. HARDY also stated that there was a need for a wider range of
candidates, which she believes would be inhibited by the lack of
limits on campaign contributions. To this end, she stated, "In
order to give the electorate a fair chance against wealthy
concerns, it is vital for us to have campaign contribution
limits. No one should be able to purchase a seat in the
legislature."
1:35:02 PM
CHAIR CARRICK, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 16.
CHAIR CARRICK opened HB 16 to committee questions.
1:35:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said that she has gotten comments regarding
the proposed bill related to both the desire for someone "not
being able to buy a seat," but also concerns about how federal
law would remain unaffected by the bill. She said a suggestion
was to tighten up disclosure rules so the public could be
informed about the contributions of groups outside of Alaska.
Representative Story stated that she wondered if the bill's
sponsor had thought about such a provision in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said it has been thought about,
specifically referring to a bill introduced into the Thirty-
Second Alaska State Legislature by Representative Rassmussen.
He said some bills in previous legislatures addressed this
issue. Provisions on disclosure were not included in HB 16
because the issue was not as straightforward as individual
campaign financial contribution limits. There wasn't a clear
consensus as to the form of such legislation. Representative
Schrage said his primary intent is to "address the gaping hole
we have in our campaign finance laws here in Alaska."
Representative Schrage said that the issue could be something
the legislature could build on, but most of the action taken by
the legislature up until this point has been in keeping with a
targeted approach on campaign finance.
1:37:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked if the bill would limit the
contributions of individual groups outside of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE answered that HB 16 would apply uniform
limits to groups; there would be no special exemption for groups
outside of Alaska. Representative Schrage suggested that
Representative Vance may have been referring to independent
expenditure groups, which were, in his mind, "a different
topic." and asked Representative Vance for clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE offered her understanding that HB 16
specifically would not limit individual expenditure groups,
stating that the only limits to campaign contributions were to
individual Alaskans.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE responded this is not correct, as the
bill would impose limits on donations from all individuals, not
just Alaskans that are made directly to candidates. The most
straightforward reasons to do so, referring to rulings made by
the U.S. Supreme Court [i.e. Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission] on the issue that limits to financial contributions
are allowed for the purposes of fighting "the appearance or
actuality of corruption," and noted that the Supreme Court holds
that free speech is very important [as the US Supreme Court held
that campaign contributions are a form of free speech].
Representative Schrage also noted that the Supreme Court said
that this right is limited. He remarked:
Just as you can't scream fire in a crowded movie
theatre, you also have the right to regulate how much
someone can contribute to an individual, because there
is a legitimate purpose in curtailing free speech to
eliminate that risk of corruption or the appearance
thereof.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that under HB 16, the legislature
has applied a uniform limit to all individuals both within and
outside of Alaska when it comes to campaign contributions.
Referring to Citizens United, by which financial contributions
to a campaign could go through an individual expenditure group
rather than directly to or without direct coordination with a
campaign, he said the bill would be mitigating the risk of
corruption as it would be in accordance with that ruling. The
bill would primarily target "mega donations" to candidates from
individual donors. Representative Schrage said that he himself
gets donations that he is uncomfortable accepting and also
stated that he talked to many Alaskans with this concern. He
referred to Alaska's history of corruption and mistrust of
public officials, and many, don't want to see someone get a
$10,000 or $5,000 donation, as the total budget from one
campaign, according to Representative Schrage, is often $100,000
from one individual.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked if Representative Schrage provided
ample evidence on the record of undue influence "mega
contributions." She stated that the reason for her question was
that case law indicates "that we have to have a very high bar
and show that there has been undue influence by these
contributions."
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said this is not his understanding of
what the court has said, saying, "They have not said that you
have to prove that a certain amount has caused corruption or
undue influence." He further stated that if some other
justification for limits is created, "then you do need to
provide a very clear record for why those special justifications
are warranted or why that lower limit is warranted."
Representative Schrage stated that the courts have said that if
limits are put in place to fight the appearance of corruption,
then they are valid. These limits are lawful provided they
withstand legal scrutiny, of which HB 16 outlines five factors
that Representative Schrage presented at a prior hearing and
stated that he was willing to discuss those factors with members
of the committee further if desired.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that since Representative Schrage
mentioned the presence of "mega contributions", she would like
further clarification on his ideas about those beyond the
$10,000 or $5,000 contributions he mentioned, and she requested
names of the contributors. Representative Vance said she had
not paid much attention to the contributions to all of her
colleagues, but that such information was important for the
record because of the risk of litigation.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that he wanted to be very clear on
his remarks, as such "mega contributions" create "the appearance
or risk that members of the public may believe that there is
undue influence" on elected officials and candidates. He said
that all members of the committee are outstanding individuals
who do their best to ensure that campaign contributions are not
unduly influencing them. However, Representative Schrage stated
that the courts have ruled that even the appearance of
corruption can do enough damage to public institutions and the
rule of law that action is warranted. Therefore, Representative
Schrage said that he doesn't think there is undue influence
currently but there is an appearance of undue influence.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE noted that Representative Schrage said that
had said HB 16 mirrors a 2026 ballot initiative. She asked
asked, "If it's already going to be before the people, why move
it through the legislature now?"
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said it gives the legislature an
opportunity to take care of the issue of campaign contribution
limits now, thus saving on the time and expense of bringing such
a measure to the ballot. Representative Schrage said he would
love to see the legislature pass HB 16 this year to ensure
election integrity. In reference to representative Vance's
comment that she "doesn't pay too close attention" to campaign
contributions, Representative Schrage said that he has looked at
campaign donations and a few of them are "actually big." and
that citizens are concerned when they see that. Representative
Schrage says he wants to restore the perceived integrity of
Alaska's elections and that he worries about the appearance of
corruption. In reference to Representative Vance's earlier
question if Representative Schrage had names of "mega
contributors," he said that it was very easy to go to the APOC
website and do a donor search and present the data in Excel.
Doing so, Representative Schrage said he has seen donations
upward of $10,000 multiple times, which he believes is too much.
1:46:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said that people have talked about both
ballot measures and outside money. To illustrate her point, she
referred to the 2013 campaign for an Oil and Gas Tax Reform Bill
in which $18 million was spent according to Representative
Himschoot, and the Ranked Choice Voting campaign in which she
estimated that $40 million was spent. She noted that these are
massive sums of money and she asked, "Are we allowed to limit
outside money or is that what the Supreme Court was talking
about with free speech in terms of ballot measures?"
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE stated that such a matter was not a topic
he has expertise in but said that based on the rulings in both
Thompson v. Hebdon and Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission, he does not know if there is a lot the legislature
can do to limit independent expenditure. However,
Representative Schrage said that the State of Alaska had the
right to do was demand disclosure for campaign contributions.
To what extent the required disclosure would reach into a
campaign's or a donor's activities or relationships between the
two, he stated that he could do more research on the topic and
be able to answer the committee's questions on it. He stated
that he has tried to be responsive to the actions of the courts
and taken a very narrow approach to the issues such rulings have
brought to Alaska. These were questions that he believed the
legislature should investigate in the future.
1:48:38 PM
CHAIR CARRICK inquired about the availability of definitions and
specifically requested a clarifying definition of "group" or
"non-group" entity.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said if the committee members were
looking at definitions of a non-group entity provided in the
bill, there was an example mentioned in a print off, the Alaska
Conservation Voters PAC. Representative Schrage stated that his
understanding of a "group" entity is an umbrella term that
included the sub-group of political parties. Representative
Schrage said he was going to ask for a few examples to follow up
with the committee via an inquiry with APOC. He said that HB 16
had traction within the legislature, but that he was getting
"tripped up" on the definitions used in the bill.
CHAIR CARRICK talked about the confusion surrounding the
definitions of group and non-group entities. All entities in
either of those brackets are held to the same standard of $4,000
donation caps, and individuals would have a lower donation cap.
To illustrate the effects of such a classification, she asked
for confirmation that there's nothing that prevents someone who
is affiliated with a PAC group from also making an individual
contribution to a candidate up to that limit.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE confirmed this is correct.
1:51:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that she is highly uncomfortable with
limiting free speech. She noted that HB 16, would limit
campaign contributions from individuals and that the state was
not able to "limit PACS or independent expenditures."
Representative Vance therefore asked what the difference in
weight on influence in elections between individual
contributions and PACS and independent expenditure groups is.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that there are options for the
legislature to limit campaign contributions from PACs and
individual expenditure groups. He also stated that there are
multiple options for citizens to exercise their right to free
speech including donating to a party or a PAC, creating a PAC,
and donating individually to candidates. He said that the issue
of campaign contributions as free speech was not "as simple as
just weighing an individual to candidate contribution limit
versus free speech; this is nuanced." He stated that he is a
strong believer in free speech and said that he had been in
politics for five years, which in his mind still gives him some
of the perspective of a citizen. He reiterated that he shares a
mutual concern of the impact that wealthy individuals have on
Alaska's political process. He stated that he thinks HB 16
strikes a good balance between the ability of an individual to
influence an election and the ability of the legislature to
ensure trust in the election process and with elected officials.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that she understands that the words in
the bill make its authority broad but pointed to Representative
Schrage's testimony during which he repeatedly said that HB 16
aims to limit the outside contributions to PAC and individuals.
However, Representative Vance said that such authority was not
described directly in bill and asked as to why it was that such
authority was not specifically outlined in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said the Supreme Court has explicitly
ruled that Alaska cannot curtail outside donations specifically.
The reason that the State of Alaska would be able to put limits
in place, according to Representative Schrage, would be to fight
the appearance of or actuality of corruption. Referring to
Thompson v. Hebdon, he stated that the justices overseeing the
case asked why the influence of out-of-state donations is less
corruptive than the influence of in-state ones. Representative
Schrage stated that through previous iterations of the bill, he
has tried to find ways to limit out-of-state donations, and so
far, he has been unable to find anything that he believes
withstands legal scrutiny. Therefore, he concluded that the
state could not place a monetary limit on out-of-state
donations, despite his personal disagreements.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE spoke to Representatives Himshoot's
question on ballot initiatives, saying that Alaskans feel
strongly that there is a "an obscene amount of money coming from
the outside to influence Alaskans." She acknowledged that
contributions must be disclosed' but remarked there are a lot of
people who don't know how to navigate APOC's website, which puts
them at a disadvantage, and makes it unlikely they will take the
time to retrieve disclosed information on campaign
contributions. She further stated that she thinks there is
value in specifically outlining nonresidents, as well as long as
the state treats them on the same level as residents.". She
asked Representative Schrage if that was something that he had
considered; if non-residents were put on same footing so that
the legislature can limit campaign contributions from them as
well.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said he was not exactly sure what
Representative Vance was proposing but was open to discussion.
However, Representative Schrage said that because out-of-state
donors may be discouraged from making donations directly to
candidates, donations to independent expenditure groups are
preferred by such donors to deploy their money on a masse scale.
According to Representative Schrage, Representatives Vance's
concerns that disclosure requirements are insufficient is
warranted precisely for the reasons she cited.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE observed there is money coming in from
both sides-you see organized efforts coming in from both sides
of an issue-and they comb through each other's reports. This
phenomenon leads to wars of attrition in the media and campaigns
between both candidates and independent expenditure groups on
opposite sides of a race or issue. Because disclosures allow
groups to see expenditures, they can be helpful because they
allow those groups to "have some transparency into each other."
Representative Schrage acknowledged that while there would
probably never be a perfect system, the reason why he limited
the scope of HB 16 to direct-to-candidate contributions is that
he doesn't know of a consensus in dealing with contributions
from out-of-state donors. Because of the urgency of the issue
at hand, Representative Schrage said that he is utilizing
something that his legislative experience has taught him; the
narrower the bill, the faster it can move. His preference is to
work on another bill to address this other issue.
2:00:39 PM
CHAIR CARRICK asked what campaign contribution limits could mean
for non-traditional candidates. She stated that she thought
about what it looks like for young people running for office and
in those situations, finances are often the number one barrier
for a campaign. Therefore, she asked what Representative
Schrage had heard anecdotally about potential limits.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that one of the criticisms of old
contribution limits is that it's harder for a grassroots group
or a new candidate to mount an effective campaign because the
incumbent is often entrenched with donors. Because of campaign
time expenditure limits and filing deadlines, Representative
Schrage said that most challengers don't challenge an incumbent
until the year of an election [a 12-month period], whereas an
incumbent can mount a more effective campaign due to their
capacity to fundraise during campaign's entire run time and in
the year prior [typically an 18-month period]. By going to a
per election cycle model, Representative Schrage said HB 16
would improve the chances, from a judicial perspective, for
challengers to mount an effective campaign against an incumbent.
CHAIR CARRICK asked Representative Schrage to clarify that HB 16
has no limits to the other ways individuals can contribute to
candidates' campaigns including contributions from PACs and
voluntary time contributions. She raised a concern that by not
including limits on such contributions, it could lead to
candidates having an outsized presence within an election cycle.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that this understanding was correct
and there are multiple ways to contribute to a campaign,
including phone calls and volunteering, and for these
contributions, there were no limits within HB 16. Other ways
for candidates to ensure that they can effectively utilize their
assets include donations to their campaigns, PACs, and
independent expenditure groups and establishing their own
independent expenditure groups, but HB 16 would limit only
direct contributions from individuals to candidates.
2:04:32 PM
CHAIR CARRICK asked Representative Schrage if this legislation
would impact how much an individual can give to their own
campaign.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said it would not.
2:04:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND talked about how not having unlimited
amounts of money would change ideas about voter engagement and
the effects such measures would have on the exercise of free
speech. Representative Holland then said he was curious as to
whether, if the legislature were to pass HB 16 and it were to be
signed into law during the current session, there was a need for
some sort of implementation plan for how limits on campaign
contributions would phase in. He indicated there were concerns
surrounding limits to campaign donations from previous election
cycles. He brought up the previously mentioned 18-month
campaigning for incumbent candidates and when that would begin
for the 2026 election. He stated support for HB 16, as well as
concern that it does not get "tangled up" and end up unusable.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said the concerns raised by
Representative Holland were good concerns, as HB 16 would not
change the amount that can be carried over from donations to a
previous campaign. Representative Schrage stated that because a
campaign initiation cannot take place until 18 months prior to
an election, no one that would be campaigning for the 2026
election would be receiving funds for their campaigns until
summer of 2025. Therefore, according to Representative Schrage,
the legislature would need to look at the effective date of HB
16, because if it were to be passed at the end of the current
session, there would be an impetus to make sure there was no
interference in the 2026 election. Representative Schrage added
that the most likely candidates that would begin fundraising for
the 2026 election in the summer of 2025 would likely be
incumbent members of the legislature and thus would be aware of
the changes in statute should HB 16 pass.
2:08:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE, in reference to Chair Carrick's question
on the effects of the law on non-traditional candidates as it
pertains to campaign drives, commented on her experience as a
first-time candidate. She was under 40 years old at the time
and started raising money from local constituents, as she
assumed everyone else did, due to a lack of funds on her part.
While she defeated a 16-year incumbent, her campaign was
difficult because she did not have the advantage and her
opponent had connections and a considerable amount of money.
She added that most of her opponents have outraised her
significantly, with PACs, independent expenditure groups, and "a
variety of connections of donors." She said that in describing
her experience as a candidate, she does not want Alaskans who
are considering running for office to "feel that they are at a
disadvantage by their age, by the location of where they're at,
or who they may know." Further elaborating on the reasons for
her statement and how it impacts her support for the bill, she
stated she thinks that Alaskans are still very much a grassroots
community when it comes to electing people to represent them.
She said, "It's a matter of how much you listen to your people
and get out there and work for it." She acknowledged the level
of in terms of how candidates are receiving money and the
outside influence.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said she would be looking at the case law
surrounding campaign contribution limits, as there have been
several cases surrounding that issue. She said that she
ultimately concurred with Representative Schrage in bringing HB
16 to the legislature, because enacting limits on campaign
contributions "is part of the trust that people want in our
election process." She underscored the lack of trust, remarking
that a lot of legislators probably deal with the accusations
that we're "bought" and that we have handlers. She stated
"That's heartbreaking to me because I know all of us try to have
that ... trust within our constituency."
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE further stated that the ability for the
legislature to regulate campaign contributions in a way that can
pass legal scrutiny is very important. However, she said she
doesn't want the legislature to do so in a way that weighs an
advantage "to one side over another," which she said there is a
perception that HB 16 would have that effect. She further
stated that individuals with no money can engage in Alaska's
system "because we are so local."
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE stated that he agreed with every word
that Representative Vance said. To illustrate his point,
Representative Schrage shared that as someone that went out and
collected signatures for the ballot initiative, countless times
he heard people call politicians corrupt, to which he would ask
if they were sure about that, noting that he is of the elected
officials, who works really hard to represent his constituents.
Thus, the subject of campaign contribution limits was something
that he believed should be addressed by the legislature through
HB 16. In reference to Mike Coon's statement entered into the
record, Representative Schrage also stated that he introduced
the bill during his first legislative session. He said this
issue has nothing to do with the current political environment,
what's happening on a local or national level. It is a response
to a court striking down campaign limits that Alaskans have
repeatedly voted for. The proposed legislation seeks to honor
Alaskans and their will and keep these campaign contribution
limits in place but adjust them "to withstand legal scrutiny."
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE further emphasized his anticipation
regarding working with Representative Vance on HB 16. He
continued by elaborating on his personal experience of entering
politics saying, "I never thought I was going to do it. I
didn't have the connections, I didn't have big donations." and
talked at length about his work knocking on doors and in taking
a grass roots initiative. He further stated that, in his
experience, incumbents have better access to donors, since
according to him it was easier to get donations after he became
an elected official. Representative Schrage said that the
$2,000 limit proposed in HB 16 is hard to get for first-time
candidates and that the lower the limit is, the better it is for
a challenger, for a first-time candidate.
2:14:09 PM
CHAIR CARRICK said that she agreed with both statements made by
Representative Vance and Representative Schrage, particularly
with Representative Vance's statement about outside monied
influence and the importance of talking about and addressing it.
Chair Carrick said that she sees this legislation as something
that should be brought forward either in its current form or
with amendments. She said that since members of the legislature
have unique experiences, Representative Schrage's comments on
his first race resonated with her; as she was in the first five
way open primary and she, as a 30-year-old woman, beat all of
the men in her race, a couple of which had more money, and one
of whom had four times the money from individual and PAC
donations. She said this was a hard task. Because of that
experience, she would like to see downward pressure on the size
of campaign donations, as presented in HB 16.
2:15:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said that the issue of campaign
contribution limits is important. To illustrate her point, she
said that her district would likely not have $2,000 donors.
However, because the expense of campaigning in her district is
immense. Representative Himschoot continued:
I look at this and I'm like $2,000 would be wonderful;
I'd be amazed to get that kind of contribution. But
the group donations mattered a lot to me too. So,...I
just always have to speak up as someone who campaigns
in a very rural place where the only way to do it is
small planes; if I'm lucky there's a ferry, usually
not; ...hotels sometimes ... yeah; it's just immensely
expensive to campaign in my district.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT further said that she doesn't see HB 16
working against her, and that the legislature needed to work to
build trust in Alaska's elections. However, because of the
unique challenges Representative Himschoot faces in campaigning
in her district, she must consider where her contributions come
from locally.
2:17:28 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced that HB 16 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 16 Support LTR League of Women Voters 3-26-25.pdf |
HSTA 3/29/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 16 Support LTR AKPIRG 3-26-25.pdf |
HSTA 3/29/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 16 Written Testimony 3-27-25.pdf |
HSTA 3/29/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 58 Written Testimony 3-13-25.pdf |
HSTA 3/29/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 35 Written Testimony 3-28-25.pdf |
HSTA 3/29/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| HB 16 Written Testimony Oppose Rec'd 3-29-25.pdf |
HSTA 3/29/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 16 Written Testimony Support Rec'd 3-29-25.pdf |
HSTA 3/29/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 16 |