Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
02/10/2022 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 | |
| += | HB 251 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 234-POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
4:17:00 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 234, "An Act relating to political
contributions; and providing for an effective date." [Before
the committee was the proposed CS, Version I, adopted as the
working draft on 2/1/22.]
4:17:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor,
said his intention was to keep his introductory remarks short
given the robust conversation on the prior bill. He invited
questions from committee members.
4:17:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recalled that Representative Schrage had
removed a portion of the proposed legislation based on the
aggregate limits. He asked whether the sponsor was interested
in reinserting that section based on the attorneys comments on
aggregate limits during the discussion on HB 245.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE sought to clarify whether Representative
Eastman was referring to out-of-state contribution limits.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN confirmed that he was referring to the
aggregate out-of-state limits.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE deferred to Mr. Gunderson.
4:19:19 PM
ERIK GUNDERSON, Staff, Representative Calvin Schrage, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Schrage, prime
sponsor, clarified that the original bill removed existing
statutory language that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck
down as unconstitutional in the Thompson v. Hebdon decision. He
noted that Version I left that language in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN wondered whether the language that the
court found unconstitutional should be left in statute. He
understood that the court was against it because it was not
effective at limiting quid-pro-quo corruption.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said his intent is to leave that language
in statute; however, he shared his understanding that the
language would be unenforceable. He added that he does not
intend to rectify the out-of-state limit being struck down by
the court. He shared his interpretation from the guidance
provided by the court that there was no workable out-of-state
limit, which was why it was not addressed in the bill.
4:21:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that the annual limits were
favorable to incumbents whereas campaign limits were beneficial
for challengers. He asked for the bill sponsors thoughts on
campaign limits versus annual limits.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said the courts had indicated that
increasing contribution limits diminished the incumbents
advantage in fundraising for a campaign. He believed that
increasing limits to a higher threshold would minimize the
challenge of running a challenger campaign. Additionally, he
said he would be open to an amendment that would change the
annual limit to a campaign limit based on the election cycle.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed out that the federal limit for
both U.S. House and Senate was $2,900 per election; however, the
primary and the general were considered two different elections;
therefore, the limit was essentially $5,800. Regarding the
donors First Amendment right to express his/her opinion through
contributions, he opined that it was difficult to justify
limiting that expression of speech less for a state House or
Senate race compared to a U.S. House and Senate race. He
questioned why the federal limits were not being tracked.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE reiterated that the voters had expressed
concern and a desire to see lower limits. He said in crafting
the bill, he recognized the implications of Citizens United. He
summarized that the only legitimate reason to restrict free
speech in the ability to advocate for campaigns through
donations, was to eliminate or avoid the appearance or actuality
of quid-pro-quo contributions or actions. He acknowledged that
the federal limits provided more ceiling and limited free speech
less; however, he said HB 234 attempted to strike a balance
between the citizens desire to see a lower limit and a
constitutionally valid limit.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about a potential amendment to
close the FCA loopholes, as referenced by Representative
Eastman.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE offered to follow up with the
information.
4:26:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN acknowledged that the loophole may
technically exist, but in reality, it didnt arise because it
would take a lot of organization to fundraise, so the notion of
gaining the system by utilizing FCA seemed incredibly unlikely.
He reasoned that the legislature could take time to close the
loophole; however, it was a loophole that was not being utilized
by anyone. He believed that absent any evidence that it had
been exploited, the committee should focus on the matters at
hand, as opposed to hypotheticals.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said that was his initial impression as
well. He added that since then, it had been brought to his
attention that perhaps it has been exploited.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether it had been exploited with
any frequency.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said, Apparently.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE confirmed that it was an existing
loophole that was not addressed in HB 234. He suggested that
keeping contributions uniform through the different levels of
races throughout Alaska would not expand that loophole or offer
incentive to take advantage of it.
4:27:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said she liked the idea of a unified
contribution amount, which would be simpler from the publics
perspective. She emphasized the importance of public
engagement, adding that engagement should be prioritized over a
dollar amount. She asked whether the bill sponsor had
considered the idea of allowing independent expenditures to have
"a wide open of outside influence into them in their impact on
races.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE stated that he had not taken an extensive
look at independent expenditure groups because through Citizens
United, the doors have been opened for unlimited money to go to
independent expenditure groups. Further, he said [the courts]
made it very clear that the state is not in a position to limit
contributions to independent expenditure groups. He conveyed
that he personally took issue with the ramifications of Citizens
United.
4:29:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE clarified that her concern was not to limit
the use of independent expenditure groups. She acknowledged
that the goal was to have Alaskans influencing Alaskans;
nonetheless, she believed that a small degree of outside
influence had its value. She questioned whether outside
influence in the form of contributions to independent
expenditure groups could be limited by the state and whether
Representative Schrage was interested in addressing that in the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE reiterated that the only legitimate
reason to limit free speech was to avoid the appearance or
actuality of corruption. He noted that there was no proof that
out-of-state donations have any more impact on a candidates
decisions or actions than in-state donations, which was why an
out-of-state contribution limit had not been reimplemented in
Alaska.
4:31:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the bill sponsors
thoughts on graduated limits and whether the threshold for
Senate should be higher than the threshold for House.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said it was a challenging question
because it would make rational sense to implement a higher
contribution limit for Senate races; alternatively, more voters
may be inclined to participate in the election and make a
contribution [with a lower limit]. Further, he pondered how a
donation of $1,000 to a House race would be more or less
corrupting than a $1,000 donation to a Senate race. For that
reason, he believed in a uniform contribution limit across
races.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referenced the 10 states with no
contribution limit and proposed a comparative scenario that
considered two candidates: the first was wealthy and had the
ability to finance a campaign; the second was in a lower-income
bracket, which put them at a financial disadvantage, but he/she
had better credentials and was more aligned with the voters in
the district. He asked Representative Schrage to speak on that
consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said it was a valid concern; however,
another valid concern is that a large contribution could entice
that politician into a quid-pro-quo exchange. He added that he
could only speculate on how Alaskans feel about an unlimited cap
on donations. He reiterated that on numerous occasions,
Alaskans had expressed a high degree of concern about corruption
and a very strong desire to have a low contribution limit.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recalled that the Supreme Court had noted
several factors unique to Alaska, such as the size of the
legislature. He asked whether Representative Schrage had
considered increasing the number of legislators to appease the
court.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE reiterated that his intent was to keep
the bill narrow in scope while achieving the objective of
restoring contribution limits.
4:37:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN recalled the scenario he posed previously
regarding two different volunteers: one who was disabled but
wealthy, and another who was able-bodied but unable to
contribute financially. When considering limits, he asked
whether there would be equity between the two voters in their
ability to support a candidate.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said he hadn't thought about that. He
offered to follow up after giving it more thought.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS added, What if one volunteer is smarter
than the other one? Is the dumb volunteer an inequitable
contribution to the campaign than the smarter one? He
indicated that theres a lot of variations on that theme.
4:39:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that if an individual gets
elected after raising $50,000 from friends and neighbors and
$250,000 from an independent expenditure in one industry, it
could create a much higher risk of corruption. He questioned
how to deal with that in light of Citizens United.
MR. GUNDERSON remarked that per the courts guidance, individual
donations to a candidate were less influential compared to an
individuals donation to an independent expenditure group.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE clarified his aide's comment, stating
that if an individual made a contribution to an independent
expenditure group and then the independent expenditure group
spent funds on that race, the risk of quid-pro-quo engagement is
diminished substantially.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN believed that from the publics
perspective, that analysis would be suspect. He believed that
on some level, lower campaign limits for candidates would raise
the potential for independent expenditures. He opined that
there was a tension between the two.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE was unsure what the public would think on
the heels of Citizens United. He stated that the proposed
legislation aimed to address the uncertainty around contribution
limits today, adding that there was a certain level of immediacy
that the bill attempted to capture. He conveyed his interest in
keeping the scope of HB 234 narrow while still addressing core
concerns to ensure that the public could have confidence in the
upcoming elections.
4:44:59 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 234 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 234 Supporting Doc District Court Thompson v Dauphinais.pdf |
HSTA 2/10/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 234 |
| HB 234 Supporting Doc U.S. Supreme Court Thompson v Hebdon 2019.pdf |
HSTA 2/10/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 234 |
| HB 234 Supporting Doc Ninth Circuit Thompson v Hebdon.pdf |
HSTA 2/10/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 234 |
| HB 234 Supporting Doc U.S. Supreme Court Randall v Sorrell.pdf |
HSTA 2/10/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 234 |
| HB 245 Supporting document - state-by-state limit type.pdf |
HSTA 2/10/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 245 |