Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
03/29/2021 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| Presentation: Tourism and the Economy by the Alaska Travel Industry Association | |
| HB128 | |
| HB27 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 128 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 128
"An Act relating to charitable gaming online ticket
sales and activities."
2:17:36 PM
Co-Chair Merrick stated the committee would consider
amendments to HB 128. She listed individuals available
online for questions.
Representative Rasmussen MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 32-
LS0649\A.2 (Radford, 3/25/21) (copy on file):
Page 1, line 1, following "activities":
Insert"; and providing for an effective date"
Page 2, line 27, through page 3, line 1:
Delete all material and insert:
"age and location verification requirements;"
Page 3, lines 10 - 11:
Delete "permittee, an operator, or the holders of a
multiple-beneficiary permit operating under (d) of
this section"
Insert "purchaser"
Page 3, line 11:
Delete "verify"
Insert "certify"
Page 3, lines 13 - 16:
Delete all material and insert:
"is of legal purchasing age and is not physically
present in an area that has adopted a local option
prohibiting charitable gaming.
(f) A permittee, operator, or holder of a multiple-
beneficiary permit conducting a charitable gaming
activity under (d) of this section shall conduct the
charitable gaming activity in the state and determine,
in the state, the winner of the charitable gaming
activity.
* Sec. 3. This Act takes effect immediately under AS
0l.10.070(c)."
Representative Wool OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Rasmussen explained the amendment with a
prepared statement:
Last week in committee there were a few issues that
were brought up by members during our discussion on
House Bill 128. After working with the sponsor and
Legislative Legal we believe this amendment addresses
most, if not all, of the issues raised. This amendment
eliminates the requirement for a purchaser to be a
resident of the State of Alaska. It eliminates the
requirement that the raffle licensee verify the age
and location of the purchaser. It eliminates the
prohibition of sales to people located outside of
state if the organization wishes to open it up to
outside sales. For internet sales, the purchaser, not
the licensee, will verify their age and that the
individual resides in a state where purchase of a
raffle ticket is not prohibited. It clarifies that any
raffle covered in this bill occurs in this state and
the winner is determined in the state. It also
includes an immediate effective date.
Co-Chair Merrick asked to hear from the sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE ZACK FIELDS, SPONSOR, supported the
amendment and appreciated the opportunity to work with the
amendment sponsor.
Representative Wool WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
2:19:29 PM
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 32-
LS0649\A.4 (Radford, 3/26/21) (copy on file):
Page 3, line 8, following "permittee""
Insert", an operator, or the holder of a multiple-
beneficiary permit"
Page 3, line 9, following "online":
Insert "or by other electronic or digital means"
Vice-Chair Ortiz OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative LeBon explained that he had an amendment to
Amendment 2 that he would like to adopt before speaking to
Amendment 2. He MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 to Amendment 2:
Page 1, line 2 of the amendment, following "permit":
Insert "conducting a raffle or lottery, dog mushers'
contest, derby, or type of classic defined in AS
05.15.690"
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative LeBon shared that he intended to withdraw
the amendment but wanted to put a few things on the record.
He explained Amendment 2 as amended with a prepared
statement:
Amendment 2 as amended clarifies the language when it
comes to how a permittee, an operator, or the holder
of a multiple beneficiary permit may conduct a
charitable raffle or lottery, a dog mushers' contest,
derby, or classic. The new language on page 3, line 8
would read "a permittee, an operator, or the holder of
a multiple-beneficiary permit conducting a raffle or
lottery, dog mushers' contest, derby, or type of
classic defined in AS 05.15.690 may draw winning
tickets online or by other electronic or digital
means." The language would allow, in addition to
permittees, operators, and holders of multi-
beneficiary permits, to draw winning tickets online or
utilize electronic or digital means on a computer.
Utilization of electronic tools for drawing of winning
tickets brings increased efficiencies such as those
noted by stakeholders during invited testimony. The
department has interpreted the definition of "raffle
and lottery" in AS 05.15.690 Section 41 very strictly.
Such that drawing winning tickets by lot only means
drawing physical tickets in a barrel draw. My desire
is to make clear to the department that we intend to
allow drawings to be conducted electronically.
This amendment came to me from the suggestion of a
letter from the Public Employees Local 71, which
utilizes a charitable gaming operator who also happens
to be one of my constituents, to help fund a
scholarship and wellness fund for members and their
families. As the bill is written now, only permittees,
not operators or holders of multi-beneficiary permits,
may draw tickets online. Many nonprofits rely on
operators to raise funds for them, reducing the effort
of organizing massive fundraising events themselves.
It is not my intent with this language to enable
electronic pull tabs or electronic bingo, which I
believe is only made more explicit by the amendment to
the amendment specifying this would only apply to a
raffle or lottery, dog mushers' contest, derby, or
classic.
I believe the drafter Claire Radford is on the line
and I believe she can clarify some of these points and
I would also like to get an assessment by the
Department of Revenue. Before we go to the drafter,
there has been concern expressed by some stakeholders
who are not comfortable with the amount of time that
they have had to review this amendment. I have
communicated with the sponsor who has assured my
office that they are willing to work with me on this
amendment on the House floor. So, in good faith, I
intend to withdraw it so it can be offered on the
floor once those groups have had a chance to get
further review.
Representative LeBon WITHDREW Amendment 2 as amended.
2:23:46 PM
AT EASE
2:25:26 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick noted the amendment process had concluded.
Representative Wool had questions about the amendment that
had been withdrawn related to online raffle and lottery
sales. He asked how to combine the use of online tickets
and paper tickets to draw a winning ticket. He asked if
online tickets would be converted to paper. He surmised
that the idea of electronic tickets was temporarily off the
table, but the issue could be addressed on the House floor.
He thought the House Finance Committee setting may be a
better place to figure the issue out. He reiterated his
prior questions and asked how the winner would be drawn. He
asked about a scenario where the winner was drawn at a
banquet. He asked if the digital ones would be included on
paper in the drawing. He asked about scenarios where the
tickets were sold out-of-state. He asked if the number of
tickets to be sold was made clear before the start of the
lottery. He asked for verification that tickets could not
be added to the original number after the lottery had
begun.
2:27:18 PM
Representative Fields believed the statute was clear that a
drawing had to be fair and transparent with a record of the
tickets in an in-person only or a combined in-person and
online lottery. He explained that the operator of the
raffle would have to consolidate the paper and online
tickets in one way or another. He believed the committee
had heard in invited testimony that permittees and
charitable organizations believed online sales were more
easily traceable. He stated his understanding that HB 128
already allowed for the drawing of a ticket from a barrel
in an online manner. He was happy to work with
Representative LeBon on the issue to ensure there was no
ambiguity. He deferred to Legislative Legal for further
detail.
Representative Wool understood that a digital ticket could
be pulled from a digital barrel. He wondered what would
happen if paper tickets were also sold. He asked if the
paper tickets would be entered into the digital barrel. He
remarked that sometimes people wanted a ceremonial draw
instead of a random number generator.
2:29:09 PM
Representative Fields believed the statute was pretty clear
that if 250 tickets were sold online and 250 were sold in
person with an in-person drawing, there would need to be
500 tickets in the barrel to have an equal chance.
Representative Wool asked for verification that the number
of tickets in a raffle had to be set at the beginning of
the process.
Representative Fields deferred to Legislative Legal
regarding the number of tickets that could be sold.
2:29:51 PM
CLAIRE RADFORD, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL
SERVICES (via teleconference), replied that she could get
back to the committee with an answer.
Co-Chair Merrick noted the committee was having difficulty
hearing Ms. Radford. She asked to have the answer repeated.
Ms. Radford would look into the question and follow up.
COLLEEN GLOVER, DIRECTOR, TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE (via teleconference), answered that she could
follow up on the question. She knew tickets had to be
sequentially numbered.
Representative Wool wanted to know there were a finite
number of tickets being sold in a raffle.
2:32:23 PM
Ms. Glover replied that she did not see the issue included
in regulation. She noted the DOR charitable gaming manager
was not currently available due to the state holiday. She
would follow up with an answer.
Representative Rasmussen remarked that it did not seem
appropriate for the legislature to micromanage how
operators chose to manage their raffles if they were
operating within the legal bounds. She had purchased
numerous raffle tickets, which always seemed to disclose
the number of raffle tickets and the time and date of the
drawing. She believed adding the digital component would
eliminate some of the data entry and administrative work
and provided for more accurate online records. She thought
that paper could get lost much easier than digital
footprints and she believed it added to transparency and
provided more flexibility to raffle operators.
2:33:38 PM
Representative LeBon stated that the language in Amendment
2 attempted to broaden the scope to include operators and
multi-beneficiary permittee holders. He asked if the
amendment would enable electronic bingo, pull tabs, slot
machines, or other class III gaming.
Representative Fields answered that it was the concern the
sponsor had heard from stakeholders that the language could
be misconstrued. He understood it was not the intent of
Amendment 2. He wanted to be certain the plain language
would only be interpreted one way, consistent with the
sponsor's intent.
Representative LeBon asked if allowing a digital ticket to
be drawn by digital means would create a conflict with the
definition of raffle and lottery by the drawing for prizes
by lot and as was defined in state statute.
Representative Fields replied that there was a bit that
hinged on the definition of "by lot" and whether it was
limited to a drawing from a barrel in physical or
electronic means. He believed the legislature needed to
ensure they were narrowly referring to drawing from a
barrel and not permitting online pull tabs, slots, and
sports gaming, all of which raised problems with
stakeholder conflicts and legal problems potentially with
federal law. He had not heard concerns from any stakeholder
about electronically drawing from a barrel, but he had
heard numerous concerns about language being misconstrued
to permit other activities, which were likely better
addressed in comprehensive legislation. He disclosed that
Local 71 was one of his wife's employers. He noted the
union had weighed in with the proposal, albeit he had not
supported it.
2:35:55 PM
Representative LeBon asked if the amendment would result in
a significant expansion of gaming revenue. He asked if it
was a net plus for the industry.
Representative Fields answered that it was not his
intention for the bill to expand the scope of online gaming
beyond online raffle sales. He stated that if an amendment
were misconstrued to allow such a broad expansion of online
gaming, whether it would lead to significant additional
revenue was hard to know. He would not want to go down that
road without understanding all of the implications.
2:36:35 PM
Representative Josephson asked for verification that the
bill made no changes to pull tab laws.
Representative Fields replied in the affirmative.
Representative Josephson referred to Representative Fields'
reference to the definition of "by lot." He relayed that
the committee had received an email the past weekend
mentioning other reforms. For example, there was a
requirement that an operator or permittee have a lease for
bingo or pull tab locations. The email had pointed out
there were instances where the requirement was silly. He
asked if it was further reform the bill sponsor was looking
to engage in or leave for another day.
Representative Fields replied that since the bill had been
introduced, he had heard a number of good ideas in the
realm of charitable gaming. He communicated his hope to
address broader reforms in separate legislation because
there were pending events that groups were trying to plan
in the midst of a pandemic that were contingent on online
raffle sales. He would hate for the bill to not pass in the
current year and render numerous important events planned
to take place over the next six months unable to move
forward.
Representative Rasmussen elaborated legislators were all
aware that DOR was actively working with a consultant that
would take a deep dive into all gaming. She believed
whether bingo and pull tab operators would be allowed to
operate online was something the legislature needed to
discuss after it received a report from the consultant. She
agreed that it was prudent to provide the ability for
raffles and events to move forward. She believed the
legislature would have substantial conversation about
gaming in the next year. She agreed with the bill sponsor
on the need to keep the bill topic tight.
Representative Wool supported the bill, the concept, and
the nonprofits wanting to sell tickets. He did not believe
the circumstances were as dire at present - bars,
restaurants, and supermarkets were open and people could be
out in public and do much of the same activities where
raffle tickets had been sold in the past. He returned to
his previous question and remarked that the House floor was
not a place to fix legislation. He provided a scenario
where a raffle ticket was $100 with a 500 or 1,000 ticket
cap. He stated that the concept extended to the $5 tickets.
He wanted to ensure that once the number of tickets for a
raffle had been decided and announced, it was not possible
to add more tickets on at a later time. He was trying to
determine whether the rule was in regulation or statute.
2:41:17 PM
Representative Fields deferred to his staff.
TRISTAN WALSH, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ZACK FIELDS, answered
that 15 AAC 160.670 was one of the regulations regarding
the printing and record keeping of raffles tickets. He
reported that the sponsor's office had heard from numerous
stakeholders that looking at a mixed barrel operation, they
would continue to list things and follow laws and
regulations regarding the maximum number of tickets in the
raffle. He detailed that a software platform could help
operators track sales and deduct tickets as they went. For
example, if someone was selling tickets at Safeway on an
iPad, it was possible to track tickets sold at each
location to ensure there was no issue with the number of
tickets sold. In regard to the drawing of the ticket, there
were software programs and services that allowed a ticket
to be drawn electronically. Additionally, operators also
had the option of making a paper copy of digital tickets to
draw the drum. He added that the bill retained, with an
amendment from the committee member from district 20
[district 22], the instruction for the department to
develop regulations to implement and contemplate some of
the issues that local organizations may encounter.
2:43:11 PM
Representative Wool asked if the statute specified that the
number of tickets was set out at the beginning of a raffle
as a finite number.
Mr. Walsh replied that he would have to follow up on the
question.
Representative Carpenter stated the issue sounded fairly
benign allowing nonprofits to raise money more effectively.
He asked how the additional funds were used, specifically
related to lobbying and political causes. He referenced
conversations about dark money. He wanted to be clear the
bill was about nonpolitical related fundraising that would
not increase the amount of funds being used for political
campaigns. He was curious if it was an effect the bill
would have.
2:44:43 PM
Representative Fields answered not to his knowledge. He
relayed there were just under 1000 permittees affected by
the bill. He was not familiar with all of the permittees.
He had engaged with the derbies, classics, and many of the
sportsman groups conducting rallies. His office had also
coordinated with other stakeholders currently not affected,
basically to ensure they were not affected. He was not
aware of a circumstance where the bill would get around any
of Alaska's campaign laws. He was not aware of political
groups that used anything allowed by the bill.
Additionally, nothing in the bill would enable a nonprofit
to get around Alaska's dark money laws, which would remain
in place.
Representative Johnson asked if some [raffles] would be in-
person and some would be online.
Representative Fields answered in the affirmative. He
elaborated that his office had heard that permittees had
been doing the combined sales during the pandemic, which
had been valuable.
Representative Johnson believed selling tickets in-person
provided a connection to a real person instead of online.
She hoped the bill would primarily benefit people and
organizations that ticket purchasers cared about and
appreciated. She thought requiring a certain percentage of
the tickets to be sold in-person may connect the sales to
reality. She stated that random number generators were not
all created the same. She elaborated that there was much
dabbling and different kinds of security when it came to
random numbers. She understood the topic was not included
in the bill, but she believed it would have to be addressed
at some point to make it fair and equitable.
Representative Fields responded that he believed concepts
highlighted by Representative Johnson were good things to
address in regulation to ensure opportunities to win
remained as equitable as they were in statute for physical
tickets. For example, the Kenai River Sportfish Alliance
had sold just over half its tickets in person and the
remainder online during the pandemic. Overall, the
organization had raised more money. He had heard from other
operators, such as the downtown duck race in Ship Creek in
his district. He elaborated that the operators would
continue to sell online and in downtown establishments. He
hoped there would be great tourist seasons in the future
and that tourists would buy tickets in local stores. He
believed the in-person connection was essential for any
functional event. He provided the Nenana or Bethel Ice
Classic as examples and did not foresee the events ever
discontinuing the sale of tickets in person given the size
of the community and the nature of the local event.
Representative Fields addressed the benefit of online sales
with an example of a person in downtown Anchorage who was
traveling outside who wanted to purchase a raffle ticket.
In the case of some of the conservation groups, they sold
high value raffle tickets to nonresidents and the tickets
had ability to raise substantial money for conservation and
natural resources. He believed it was a win even if most
tickets were still purchased in person by Alaska residents.
2:49:00 PM
Representative Wool shared that whenever he travelled
outside of Alaska, he typically purchased a lottery ticket
for fun. He did not believe he could purchase a state
lottery ticket online in Alaska because there was no state
lottery. He asked if he was correct. He asked if other
states allowed online sales to other states.
Representative Fields answered that it was a complicated
legal issue. He explained that lotteries were different
from raffles, which was the reason for the narrow scope of
the bill. He elaborated that he was not trying to permit an
online lottery conducted in Alaska that would allow people
in multiple states to participate. He noted the concept
would be much more complicated to pursue. He concluded that
the idea was far beyond the scope of the bill.
Representative Wool shared that he had just bought an
online ticket on the Permanent Fund Dividend website for
the [Senator] Click Bishop lottery [Alaska Education
Lottery]. He believed it was an online-only lottery. He
pointed out there were online lottery tickets of a limited
style. He remarked there was not a limited ticket number
because the goal was to sell as many as possible - the more
tickets sold, the larger the pot. He did not know whether
the bill covered online lottery tickets.
Representative Fields replied that he did not believe it
did. He deferred to his staff.
Mr. Walsh answered that the Alaska Education Lottery was
established under a different title in statute; therefore,
it was not necessarily governed by the changes made in the
bill. He deferred to Legislative Legal for any additional
input.
Ms. Radford agreed. She confirmed that the Alaska Education
Lottery had been established in a different statute and was
not covered under the bill.
2:51:34 PM
Representative Josephson noted that the new subsection,
Section 2, referred to lottery on line 7. He asked for
detail.
Representative Fields explained that the language referred
to the set of events with permittees traditionally thought
of as derbies, classics, and charitable gaming classics, as
opposed to a lottery seen in the Lower 48, some of which
were multistate. He deferred to Legislative Legal for the
legal definition.
Ms. Radford answered that raffle and lottery were defined
as one and the same under AS 05.15.690. She explained that
statute pertained to the selling of rights to participate
and awarding of prizes in a game of chance conducted by the
drawing of prizes by lot.
2:52:45 PM
Representative Rasmussen stated her understanding that the
Permanent Fund lottery was closed to nonresidents. She
thought a person could only donate a portion of their
Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) [to enter the lottery].
Ms. Radford agreed. She confirmed that the raffle was only
through the Permanent Fund.
Representative Rasmussen asked for verification that
someone could not go online and pay $100 to purchase a spot
in the lottery. She stated her understanding that an
entrant had to be an Alaskan resident and had to use a
portion of their PFD to enter.
Ms. Radford agreed. She confirmed that a person needed to
be in-state and using their PFD to purchase a spot.
Mr. Walsh responded to earlier questions by Representative
Josephson and Representative Wool. He and explained that
the amendment by the member from District 22 added language
that was protective for the state's interest as well as
those operating a raffle or lottery under AS 5.15.690. The
amendment clarified that charitable gaming activity would
take place in the state and the winner would be determined
in the state. The guidance the bill sponsor had received
from legal experts on behalf of stakeholders had
communicated the amendment language would allow raffles and
lotteries to be conducted with as much safety as possible
regarding interpretation.
2:54:41 PM
Representative Carpenter spoke about unintended
consequences. He looked at support within the bill packet
from the Safari Club and Kenai River Sportfishing
Association. He remarked that both organizations did good
things within the state. He shared that he was a fan of
hunting and fishing. He stated that the committee had just
amended the bill to allow raffle tickets to be purchased
out-of-state. He elaborated that the Safari Club mission
was advocacy and its website specified it would advocate
for specific legislation. He remarked that the state's
campaign finance laws would not be changed by the
legislation; however, he was concerned about the unintended
consequence of advocacy for local and state laws through
the purchase of raffle tickets by people outside Alaska. He
expounded that without the amendment the dollars raised
through raffles would be by Alaskans for Alaskans. He
highlighted that [with the amendment] larger amounts of
money could potentially be coming in from out-of-state to
local organizations dealing with local issues. He thought
it warranted further consideration.
Representative Fields answered that prior to the pandemic
the organizations sold raffle tickets to residents of other
states. He gave an example of a person saving up to do a
big Kodiak bear hunt or something similar. He explained
that the pandemic had hit, and the administration had
issued temporary guidance on online sales. He relayed that
when he had heard from business and nonprofit stakeholders
that wanted to continue online sales, his office had
drafted the bill to align closely with the administration's
temporary guidance. He explained that after the drafting of
the bill, his office had heard from sporting groups and
others that previous to the pandemic they had sold raffle
tickets outside Alaska. The origin of the amendment was
meant to continue a preexisting ability to sell raffle
tickets outside Alaska online. He clarified that the
amendment protected an existing power and did not create a
new one.
2:57:34 PM
Representative LeBon referenced the phrase "may draw
winning tickets online" currently in the legislation. He
asked if it allowed for a random number generator for use
of drawing the "winning ticket."
Representative Fields deferred to Legislative Legal.
Ms. Radford answered that the language was ambiguous, and
it was unclear how the department would look at it; it was
possible the department would interpret the language fairly
broadly to allow for a random number generator.
Representative LeBon asked whether a "ghost ticket" would
be printed to put into the physical barrel if someone
purchased a ticket online.
Representative Fields agreed that it would be necessary to
print online tickets to include a barrel because the
statute was predicated on the equal chances of winning
concept.
2:59:12 PM
Representative Rasmussen referenced the discussion by
Representative Carpenter. She thought they may be
overstating impacts. She did not believe there would be a
coordinated effort by people who strongly oppose Safari
Club's mission statement to purchase a $20 to $100 raffle
ticket with the intention of trying to sway or move the
issues advocated by a group. She thought it was more likely
that people outside of the state would support the mission
and may purchase a raffle ticket to support the cause. She
noted that elected officials took donations during
campaigns, but no donation from any group or individual
determined how elected officials acted. She elaborated that
people donated to elected officials because of what they
stood for just like people purchasing raffle tickets in
support of the mission of a group. She shared that she had
family members out-of-state who loved fishing in Alaska and
would be happy to support the cause online.
Representative Carpenter stated it was a fair point. He
clarified that he was not speaking positively or negatively
about the two organizations he had referenced earlier. He
believed the amendment enabled outside influence to occur
more easily because it was occurring over the internet. He
was not speaking about a specific organization. He stated
there could be an organization that he did not
philosophically support, and the change would support it
just as much as it would benefit an organization he
supported. He stated that the effect on local politics
would be more money pouring into organizations established
to influence politics because it was easier to have raffles
and receive money from out-of-state. He thought it should
be concerning.
3:02:30 PM
Representative Wool thought there were interesting points
being brought up, especially regarding out-of-state. He
thought it underscored the importance of establishing a
ticket limit. He provided a scenario where the ticket was
$1,000 and 100 were sold. He remarked that someone may want
to know where the money had come from. He thought
establishing parameters and limits from the outset of any
lottery it would prevent any "funny business" from going
on. He thought it was an important component to any game of
chance.
Representative Fields answered that every raffle he had
ever seen or participated in advertised the information at
the outset, which was part of the appeal. He noted it was
different than purchasing a lottery ticket in the Lower 48
where the goal was for as many people to participate as
possible, which at some point materially decreased the odds
of winning. With a raffle there was a finite number, which
was part of the appeal. He would look into the issue and if
it was not currently addressed, he was open to addressing
it assuming there was concurrence by stakeholders. He
thought it seemed to be something that was done already.
3:04:07 PM
Representative Wool clarified that a ticket limit was not
desirable for certain things like the Nenana Ice Classic
where the goal was to sell as many tickets as possible to
generate a large pot of money. He understood it was already
addressed in statute.
Ms. Glover replied to Representative Wool's question
related to the number of raffle tickets. She relayed that
the limit did not exist in regulation. She explained there
was nothing limiting the number of tickets being sold or
requiring the operator to notify purchasers of the number.
She stated it was possible for an organization to market a
raffle at a certain number of tickets and add more later
on. She did not know whether it happened, but it was
allowable. She added that current regulation required
numbered sequential tickets and for the organization to
account for every ticket (whether sold or not).
Representative Wool thought it was an important point. He
stated that the requirement for tickets to be numbered
sequentially was great; however, he thought a ticket limit
should be addressed to account for raffles tickets sold
globally. He did not feel comfortable with the bill until
the issue was addressed.
3:05:57 PM
Representative Johnson asked if the process was used by
other states.
Representative Fields confirmed that other states had
language very similar to the language included in the bill
and the [adopted] amendment sponsored by Representative
Rasmussen. The amendment basically outlined how to have an
instate organization conducting a raffle instate with
participation from residents of other states. He shared
that his office had reviewed some of those examples and had
tried to make the bill consistent with what seemed like
best practices.
Representative Johnson provided a scenario where a national
nonprofit established a raffle in Alaska and sold tickets
online nationally. She asked if the organization would be
required to be registered as a nonprofit in Alaska or have
an Alaska business license.
Representative Fields referenced AS 05.15, which included
limitations on what constituted a qualified organization.
He explained that an organization had to exist for at least
three consecutive years prior to applying and have at least
25 members who were Alaska residents. He explained there
were some safeguards included against national
organizations using Alaska as a haven to conduct raffles.
He deferred to Mr. Walsh for additional detail.
Mr. Walsh added there were 40 to 45 other states that
allowed online raffles in some form. He detailed that most
were restricted to charitable gaming for nonprofits. In
regard to a national organization looking to find a home
base, there were a majority of other states with some form
of the practice included in the bill.
3:08:11 PM
Representative Wool gathered that the bill was on a fast
track to be reported out of committee. He remarked on the
absence of a requirement to limit the number of tickets
being sold. He stated it would be possible for an
organization to say they were selling 100 tickets and then
sell 10,000. He wanted to amend the bill. He relayed that
he did not want to amend the bill on the House floor due to
the unpredictability. He wondered whether the bill sponsor
would be amenable to a conceptual amendment. He remarked
that it was not his intent to slow the bill down. He stated
that allowing tickets to be sold globally meant a person in
Jaipur, India could purchase tickets.
3:09:07 PM
AT EASE
3:11:04 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to REPORT CSHB 128(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Edgmon, Josephson, LeBon, Ortiz, Rasmussen,
Thompson, Wool, Merrick, Foster
OPPOSED: Carpenter
The MOTION PASSED (9/1).
Representative Johnson was absent from the vote.
There being NO further OBJECTION, CSHB 128(FIN) was
REPORTED out of committee with four "do pass"
recommendations, three "no recommendation" recommendations,
and four "amend" recommendations and with one new
indeterminate fiscal note from the Department of Revenue.
3:12:24 PM
AT EASE
3:15:58 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| ATIA and COVID19 Impacts_ATIA-HFIN 032921.pdf |
HFIN 3/29/2021 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HB 128 Amendments 032821.pdf |
HFIN 3/29/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 128 Public Testimony Pkt 3 032921.pdf |
HFIN 3/29/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 128 |