Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
02/01/2022 03:00 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 | |
| HB245 | |
| HB234 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 245 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 234 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 234-POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
3:35:50 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 234, "An Act relating to political
contributions; and providing for an effective date."
3:36:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor,
introduced HB 234.
3:36:29 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
3:36:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 234, labeled 32-LS119\I, Bullard,
1/22/22, as the working document.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:37:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE presented the sponsor statement [included
in the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
House Bill 234 updates Alaska's political donations
limits and requires the Alaska Public Offices
Commission to increase these limits every ten years
based on Alaska's consumer inflation rates.
th
Last year, the 9 Circuit Court of Appeals struck down
the statutory campaign finance contribution limits in
the Thompson vs Hebdon decision. Alaska has long
touted strong and effective campaign finance laws and
regulations which have helped to reduce perception and
acts of quid pro quo and corruption in our electoral
process. These regulations have served to promote
better accountability and trust in our election system
and elected officials.
This ruling created legal uncertainty over political
contribution limits which have not been updated since
the 2006 citizen's initiative. HB 234 seeks to bring
the newly struck down contribution limit laws into
th
compliance with the ruling of the 9 Circuit Court of
Appeals and ensure limits moving forward are in line
with this ruling.
To accomplish this, HB 234 would double the current
statutory contribution limits made to group entities,
non-group entities, and candidates who seek to
influence state or local elections. For example, a
candidate could now accept $1,000 per calendar year
from an individual as opposed to the existing
statutory $500 individual contribution limit struck
th
down by the 9 Circuit Court of Appeals.
HB 234 directs the Alaska Public Office Commission to
adjust all contribution limits for inflation every 10
years, rounding them to the nearest $50 increment.
This statutory change helps to ensure donation limits
remain in compliance with the Thompson v Hebdon
decision in perpetuity.
3:39:00 PM
ERIK GUNDERSON, Staff, Representative Calvin Schrage, Alaska
State Legislature, provided a PowerPoint presentation, titled
HB 234 Political Contribution Limits [hard copy included in
the committee packet], on behalf of Representative Schrage,
prime sponsor. He began on slides 2, titled History of
Alaskas political Contribution Limits, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
1974 to 1995
? Statutory individual contribution limit: $1,000
? 1975 Contribution limit adjusted for inflation:
$4,725
? 1995 Contribution limit adjusted for inflation:
$1,708
1996
? Citizens' Initiative reduced individual contribution
limit to $500
? 1996 Contribution limit adjusted for inflation: $831
2003
? Legislature passed SB 119, increasing the individual
contribution limits back to $1,000
? 2003 contribution limit adjusted to inflation:
$1,460
MR. GUNDERSON continued to summarize the history of Alaskas
political contribution limits on slide 3, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
2006 Alaska Campaign Finance Reform Initiative
? Passed overwhelmingly with 73% support
Decreased the amounts:
? an individual may give a candidate or group from
$1,000 to $500
? 2006 individual limit adjusted for inflation: $669
? an individual may give a political party from
$10,000 to $5,000
? a group may give a candidate or other group from
$2,000 to $1,000
? a group may give a political party from $4,000 to
$1,000
3:41:59 PM
MR. GUNDERSON glossed over slide 4 and continued to slide 5,
titled Thompson v. Hebdon (2019), which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Background:
? Plaintiffs sued challenging Alaska's political
contribution and out-of-state limits that an
individual can contribute to a candidate for political
office, or to an election-oriented group other than a
political party, as infringement under the First
Amendment.
? The District Court and Ninth Circuit initially
upheld the individual limits as a "sufficiently
important state interest" and "closely drawn" to that
end but ruled the out-of-state contribution limits
were unconstitutional.
? The U.S. Supreme Court remanded this decision back
to the Ninth Circuit to reconsider upholding Alaska's
contribution limits, citing Randall v. Sorrel (2006)
which ruled Vermont's $400 contribution limit
unconstitutional.
? The Ninth Circuit then struck down Alaska's
statutory political contribution limits citing that
they were too low and had not been adjusted for
inflation since initially implemented.
3:43:23 PM
MR. GUNDERSON advanced to slide 6, titled Where we are now,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
? The Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) has
issued an advisory opinion under AS 15.13.374 enforce
$1,500 individual and $3,000 no political party group
contribution limits.
? APOC advisory opinion limits are based on the 2003
legislative political contribution limits increased
for inflation.
? Uncertainty remains as to whether the contribution
limits enacted in APOC's advisory opinion are valid
and if they have the authority to set these limits.
These limits have yet to be adopted by APOC's five
commissioners and could be changed or rejected.
? The only way to ensure that contribution limits are
known and enforceable is for the Alaska Legislature to
act and implement statutory limits that will be upheld
by the court system.
3:44:30 PM
MR. GUNDERSON proceeded to slide 7, titled HB 234 Overview,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
? Brings Alaska's political contribution limits in
accordance with the Thompson v Hebdon (2019) decision
which struck down Alaska's existing statutory limits.
? Doubles existing statutory campaign contribution
limits with the exception of donations to political
parties (example: an individual could donate $1,000 to
a candidate instead of the statutory $500 limit).
? Requires the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
to update political contribution limits every ten
years based on inflation, rounded to the nearest $50
increment.
MR. GUNDERSON briefly addressed slide 8, which provided a
comparison of the statutory limits, the APOC advisory opinion,
and the limits proposed in HB 234. He noted that the limits
outlined in HB 234 would fall in in between the statutory limits
and the APOC advisory opinion.
3:45:35 PM
MR. GUNDERSON presented the sectional analysis of HB 234
beginning on slide 9, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 1
Amends AS 15.13.070(b) to change the limit an
individual may contribute per year to a non-group
entity with the purpose of influencing an election,
candidate, write-in candidate, or group that is not a
political party from $500 to $1,000.
Section 2
Amends AS 15.13.070(c) to change the limit a non-
political party group may contribute per year to a
candidate, write-in candidate, another group, non-
group entity, or political party from $1,000 to
$2,000.
Section 3
Amends AS 15.13.070(f) to change the limit a nongroup
entity may contribute per year to another nongroup
entity for the purpose of influencing an election,
candidate, write-in candidate, group, or political
party from $1,000 to $2,000.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS interjected and proposed skipping the
sectional due to time constraints. He invited questions from
the committee.
3:46:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN recalled that when considering the per-
person contribution limit, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
mentioned findings that the limit specifically relates to
reasonable legislative objectives, which allows for limiting the
speech that the contributions constitute. He asked how the
proposed limits would meet a reasonable basis for contributions.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE recalled that the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals decision had communicated that the only legitimate
reason to curtail freedom of speech through political
contributions is in the interest of anti-corruption to avoid the
appearance or actuality of quid-pro-quo transactions or
dealings. He said the amount of money in campaigns makes him
uncomfortable; however, Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission created a new landscape wherein limitations on free
speech must be made cautiously. He added that the limits
proposed in HB 234 were selected in an attempt to balance the
citizens expressed interest with the ruling of the Courts.
3:48:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed out that in 1974, the Alaska State
Legislature passed a law that implemented a limit of $1,000 to
counter corruption, which was later changed to $500 by a
citizens' initiative and then raised back to $1,000 by the
legislature based on zero legislative findings of corruption.
He said he had been troubled by the reference to 2003, when in
reality, the legislature applied the limit of 1,000 in 1974,
which after adjusting for inflation, is not even close to
$1,000. He expressed his concern that none of the laws were
passed with reasonable findings of corruption and therefore,
there wasnt a need for those particular limits.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE believed that Representative Claman had
outlined a legitimate concern; however, he opined that
legislators are accountable to the voters who expressed interest
in a much lower limit. He emphasized the need to take the
expressed will of the voters into account as new limits are set.
He pointed out that 1974 was a much different time, which makes
it difficult to draw a comparison. He reiterated that the
citizens of Alaska have expressed a strong interest in keeping
the limit low. He said his intent was to strike a delicate
balance between the expressed will of the voters and the Courts
ruling on a reasonable limitation on free speech.
3:51:01 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about the summary of changes in
the proposed CS, Version I.
3:51:34 PM
MR. GUNDERSON referenced a document titled, Summary of Changes
from A to I [included in the committee packet], which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
1. Section 5(i): p 2, line 18: remove "2023" and
insert "2032
2. Section 6: p 2, line 23: Remove Sec. 6.
3. Section 7: p 2, line 24: Section renamed
accordingly to Sec. 6.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE confirmed that Section 6 was removed to
avoid amending that section of statute; further, he noted that
the adjustment of dates is to align the bill with the
redistricting changes that occur every 10 years.
3:53:01 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to the adoption of
the proposed CS, Version I, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of a question
regarding Section 6. He sought to clarify whether the language
that was struck down by the court would be removed or left in
its current form.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE explained that the original form of the
bill had removed that language from statute. In Version I,
however, that removal is removed to keep the language in
statute; therefore, if further challenges to that language end
up in litigation, further clarification could be provided by the
Court.
3:53:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Version I was adopted.
3:54:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN considered a scenario in which inflation
rose into the double digits resulting in overly restrictive
contribution limits. He asked the bill sponsor to speak on the
potential of that.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE acknowledged Representative Kaufmans
consideration as a valid concern. He believed it illustrated
yet another reason to consider a slightly higher limit; further,
he opined that a limit of $1,000 for individual-to-candidate
contributions would leave enough ceiling to remain legally
defensible in a prolonged period of heightened inflation.
3:55:32 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the bill was held over.