Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
04/12/2022 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB215 | |
| SB119 | |
| SB221 | |
| SB194 | |
| SB195 | |
| HB234 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 221 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 215 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 194 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 234 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 234-POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
4:51:01 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of CS FOR HOUSE BILL
NO. 234(STA) am(efd fld) "An Act relating to political
contributions; relating to the location of offices for the
Alaska Public Offices Commission and the locations at which
certain statements and reports filed with the commission are
made available."
He noted that the intention is to take public testimony after
Representative Schrage gives the committee a high level summary
of HB 234.
4:51:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CALVIN SCHRAGE, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau
Alaska, sponsor of HB 234, stated that this legislation fixes
the gaping hole in Alaska's campaign finance law that resulted
from the federal court decision to strike a number of
contribution limits and the Alaska Public Offices Commission's
(APOC) decision to not accept the APOC staff recommendation to
set temporary limits, absent the legislature's action. Should HB
234 pass, it would reestablish campaign finance limits in
Alaska. Most importantly it would set contribution limits from
individuals to candidates. Right now there is no limit so
unlimited funds from outside interests may flow into the state,
which potentially could harm Alaska's elections and undermine
public confidence in the integrity of its elected officials.
CHAIR SHOWER noted who was available to answer questions.
4:53:05 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if independent expenditure (IE) groups
currently were allowed to receive outside funding.
4:53:16 PM
ERIK GUNDERSON, Staff, Representative Calvin Schrage, Alaska
State Legislature, Juneau Alaska, confirmed that independent
expenditure groups were able to accept donations from
nonresidents.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if there were any limits on outside
contributions.
MR. GUNDERSON offered his understanding that there were no
contribution limits for IE groups. He deferred to Heather Hebdon
for further explanation and clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE confirmed that due to a U.S. Supreme
Court ruling, there currently were no limits on contributions to
IE groups from either outside or inside Alaska. The court's
reasoning was that the risk of a donation having a corrupting
influence was mitigated because IE groups don't coordinate with
campaigns. He said it's no longer a matter of business person A
giving money to a candidate, which directly influences that
candidate. Now the contributions go to an independent
expenditure group so the money can be spent on multiple
campaigns and the candidate may not even be aware of the source.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said his personal belief is that having
no limits on individual contributions increases the potential
for corruption and jeopardizes good governance and self-
determination. He urged the committee and legislature to
mitigate the potentially corrupting influence of unlimited
contributions to individuals by passing HB 234.
4:55:40 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO said she appreciated the example and pointed
out for the listening public that the limit on individual
contributions to candidates was $500 prior to the court ruling
and without HB 234. She said she sees it as a potential freedom
of speech issue and that the legislature should look at the
matter if an Alaskan is able to get to an IE and that IE is
influencing campaigns.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if she was saying that if IE contributions
are unlimited, the legislature should look at unlimited
contributions for an individual.
SENATOR COSTELLO clarified she was saying the committee should
consider that freedom of speech is giving to a campaign and that
on one hand there is no limit for an IE whereas there currently
is a limit on [individual contributions] and a limit is
contemplated in this bill.
CHAIR SHOWER offered his understanding that the top three donors
in an IE have to be reported.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said he'd like to address the freedom of
speech concern, which is valid, after the committee hears from
Ms. Hebdon.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Ms. Hebdon if she heard the questions and
whether she had anything to add.
4:57:58 PM
HEATHER HEBDON, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission, Department of Administration (DOA), Anchorage,
Alaska, confirmed that an IE group's political communications on
television, radio, and fliers must disclose information about
the top three contributors. IE groups are also required to
disclose all the money coming in and going out just like any
other political action committee. But as Representative Schrage
pointed out, based on the U.S. Supreme Court decision and the
court precedent there are no limitations other than that the
donations may not come from a foreign national.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked her to verify that an IE group is
required to report all its individual donors. He also asked her
to remind him of the timing for the disclosure. He recalled that
the timeline was fairly short, but he didn't recall the
specifics.
MS. HEBDON clarified that she was talking about independent
expenditures that are intended to influence a candidate
election. In that circumstance, and as a result of Ballot
Measure 2, contributors to an IE group are required to file a
statement of contribution within 24 hours of making that
contribution. The IE group is also required to disclose receipt
of the contribution within 24 hours. Ballot Measure 2 required
true source reporting and it has eliminated a majority of Dark
Money in these elections.
5:00:40 PM
CHAIR SHOWER asked what dark money hasn't been eliminated.
MS. HEBDON explained that the definition of Dark Money refers to
contributions in excess of $2,000 in the aggregate, so anything
less than that wouldn't necessarily require true source
reporting.
5:01:27 PM
CHAIR SHOWER opened public testimony on HB 234.
5:01:40 PM
KEVIN MORFORD, President, Alaska Move to Amend, Anchorage,
Alaska, stated that AMA is a nonprofit that works to strengthen
the voice of ordinary voters in the political process. He said
HB 234 isn't perfect, but he was testifying in strong support as
it was the only bill that had a reasonable chance of making it
through the process this year.
MR. MORFORD emphasized that an overwhelming majority of Alaskans
from all political parties support reasonable limits on
donations to Alaska political campaigns. He highlighted that 73
percent of Alaska voters in 2006 voted to reenact strict limits
on campaign donations and polling indicates that strong support
continues today. He urged establishing an even playing field
where the preferences of ordinary Alaska voters have the largest
influence. He stressed that candidates should compete for the
support of ordinary voters in their districts and not be
corrupted by the siren call of big money from powerful economic
interests.
MR. MORFORD urged passage of HB 234 this session.
5:03:55 PM
CHAIR SHOWER closed public testimony on HB 234.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said Senator Costello raised a legitimate
concern about freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court has
articulated that political contributions are a form of free
speech and that there must be high justification to limit that
speech. This does not mean there is no reason to restrict
speech, and the court has accepted fighting corruption as a
valid reason.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said there is ample evidence from state
history, testimony from prior elected officials, and court
records that attest to the risk of donations having undue
influence on candidates. There is also the public perception
that a $10,000 donation to Candidate A would have undue
influence. He said it's of the utmost importance that the
citizens of Alaska are able to continue to have faith in the
legislative body as an institution. In response to the notion
that Alaska isn't seeing $2,000, $3,000, and $5,000 donations,
he said we don't know that because the reporting requirements in
Alaska for candidates isn't within 24 hours like it is for IE
groups. Candidate financial disclosure reports won't be
available for several more months. There may be candidates who
already have received very large donations.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE acknowledged that speech is restricted
when campaign contributions are limited, but pointed out that
there was still an opportunity for somebody to advocate for
their candidate of preference and influence the election through
an IE group, but in a way that reduces the risk of either the
actuality or the appearance of corruption.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE restated that the concern is genuine and
something to keep in mind. Establishing contribution limits does
restrict free speech but it's done for the valid reason of
preventing corruption in the legislative body. He said that is
of the utmost importance, particularly in times like today. He
said Alaska is at great risk because the media market is
relatively cheap and the amount of money spent on political
campaigns has exploded, as witnessed by the most recent
municipal election in Anchorage. Absent passage of HB 234, he
predicted that Alaskans would see candidates receiving $10,000 -
$30,000 donations. This is already happening in IE group
contributions and there is no reason to believe this won't
extend to individual candidates, he said. The difference is that
giving to the individual candidate introduces the large
potential for corruption into that election environment.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if there were questions or comments.
5:08:32 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked what happens in other states that have
contribution limits.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE relayed that most states have
contribution limits that look similar to those proposed in HB
234, including the significantly increased limits the bill
proposes. Basically, when the court looks at whether a limit is
constitutional, it looks at what it had previously upheld as
constitutional. Before the Randall test (Randall v. Sorrell),
the Supreme Court spoke about Alaska's limit being lower than
the limit the court previously upheld, calling it a warning
sign. He said that would be about $1,000 per year when adjusted
for inflation.
CHAIR SHOWER said he'd like the committee to hear about the data
from other states.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE offered to read a short paragraph from
NCSL to provide context on national limits.
CHAIR SHOWER said he'd hold that until the next hearing.
5:11:43 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO expressed interest in the NCSL data and
information about limits on independent expenditure groups. She
said she appreciated what was said about not unduly influencing
a candidate and that there's not an appearance of corruption if
the donation goes to an IE group. However, the IE group can
amass a lot of money and then a candidate has to defend him or
herself against what that group is saying about him or herself
as a candidate. She sees IE groups as having a lot of influence
in campaigns and she'd like to know what other states do about
that and if there are any limits.
CHAIR SHOWER commented on the concern about ensuring a level
playing field.
5:13:25 PM
CHAIR SHOWER held HB 234 in committee for future consideration.