Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
05/03/2022 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 | |
| Presentation: Pacific Dataport | |
| HB297 | |
| HB234 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 234 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 297 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 234-POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
4:52:52 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."
[This is the third hearing and public testimony is closed.]
4:53:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CALVIN SCHRAGE, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of HB 234, reminded the committee that this
legislation fixes the hole in campaign finance that came about
after the court struck down Alaska's individual to candidate
contribution limits. After the ruling, the Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC) issued temporary advisory limits. APOC
recently abandoned those limits, which effectively leaves no
individual to candidate campaign contribution limits. The courts
also struck down the limits on out-of-state contributions, which
effectively leaves the state open to unlimited campaign
contributions from out-of-state doners.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE relayed that Alaska voters overwhelmingly
supported two separate ballot initiatives for robust campaign
contribution limits. Polling today still shows about 70 plus
percent of Alaskans support robust contribution limits. He
acknowledged the concern voiced in the previous committee that
this limits speech. However, it's a limitation that the people
want to ensure that there is no undue influence in elections.
4:56:32 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD stated that she supports campaign limits and
was working with the members to address their concerns.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if he could share the polling data that
he mentioned.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE agreed to provide some information.
CHAIR SHOWER asked what the legislature might do to prevent the
court from striking down the contribution limits in SB 234
because it limits free speech, just as it did on the two
previous ballot measures.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said the Supreme Court identified three
concerns with Alaska's individual to candidate limits: 1)
Alaska's $500 limit was substantially lower than the limits the
court had previously upheld; 2) Alaska's individual to candidate
limit was substantially lower than comparable limits in other
states; and 3) Alaska's limit was not adjusted for inflation.
To address those concerns HB 234 first reduced the limitations
on challengers. The court looked at whether challengers were
able to effectively fund raise like incumbents. The bill moved
the limits to a campaign cycle to alleviate the disparity
between the amounts of money an incumbent can raise versus a
challenger. To addresses the concern about adjusting for
inflation, HB 234 requires APOC to adjust the contribution
limits every 10 years, based on Alaska's consumer inflation
rates. Finally, there is no need to justify the limit because
the bill increases the limit above what is found in other states
and the court has upheld. He recapped that the limit is higher,
it is per campaign, and the limits are inflation adjusted every
10 years. These changes address the concerns of both the Supreme
Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
5:01:11 PM
CHAIR SHOWER questioned whether the bill wasn't still vulnerable
to the argument that it restricted speech. He also asked if the
risk of a court challenge would be lessened if the bill were to
adopt the federal contribution limits.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE responded to the first question by
pointing to Citizens United where the U.S. Supreme Court
acknowledged that fighting corruption was a legitimate state
interest worthy of justifying a restriction of free speech. To
the question about defending the contribution limits, he pointed
out that the contribution limits in HB 234 are higher than the
limits the court previously upheld as constitutionally valid. It
is also above the limits in many other state.
SENATOR HOLLAND asked for the reason for the March 3, 2022
retroactive date.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE explained that campaigns were following
the APOC staff guidance on contribution limits up to March 3,
2022. That is when APOC rejected the staff's proposed $1,500
limit, which threw the door open to unlimited contributions.
CHAIR SHOWER asked him to talk about the perception if not
reality that the field is not level when an individual candidate
is competing against a candidate who has strong support from
either an independent expenditure (IE) group or a union.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said he'd heard those concerns, but his
belief was that there was broad support from both sides of the
aisle for contribution limits as a means of fighting corruption
in elections. He opined that it did not match the Alaskan
identity to support unlimited money coming into the state for
Alaskan elections.
CHAIR SHOWER commented on the importance of there being a sense
of fair play, which might include restricting groups on all
sides from offering paid time off to campaign or requiring that
it be reported against the contribution limit.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE agreed with the notion of a fair playing
field and said he'd like to fix all the problems with elections.
However, that was outside the scope of the bill, and his focus
and the intent of HB 234 was to fix the gaping hole in out-of-
state contributions and individual to candidate contributions.
Specifically to the comment about union members receiving paid
time off to campaign, he offered his understanding those
activities were split into a separate arm.
5:12:18 PM
CHAIR SHOWER commented on the inability of individuals to match
the money, power, and influence of a large union like the IBEW
or somebody's brother with a large IE group who might come in
from out of state to support a candidate.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE agreed that some people have used the
process very effectively. He noted that in addition to unions,
there are some significant business PACS. He also noted that IE
groups may be able to raise millions of dollars, but they're
frequently charged substantially more for things like
advertising. He said it doesn't balance the playing field, but
it is important context.
CHAIR SHOWER commented that he was tainted because his union
never supports him due to the R" attached to his name.
5:15:09 PM
ERIC GUNDERSON, Staff, Representative Calvin Schrage, Alaska
State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, highlighted that in the last
election cycle, the independent expenditure amounts going to
each campaign was relatively even. He acknowledged that it
depended on where the money was coming from, but the amount that
the groups can give to a candidate was limited under HB 234. He
acknowledged that what they're giving to IE groups themselves
wasn't something that the legislature could do much about.
CHAIR SHOWER said that's part of the dark money he'd like to get
rid of.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Tom Lucas if he had anything to add or
correct.
5:16:41 PM
TOM LUCAS, Attorney, Alaska Public Offices Commission,
Department of Administration (DOA), Anchorage, Alaska,
referenced the comment about union members using paid time to
engage in campaign activities and explained that doing that for
a regular PAC or candidate would be unlawful. It would be a non-
monetary contribution from the business or labor organization,
which is prohibited. However, if it was being done for an
independent expenditure (IE) group, there is no limitation. An
IE group can receive unlimited amounts from almost anybody
except a foreign national.
5:18:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE thanked the committee for its attention
and expressed hope that HB 234 could be passed into law this
session.
CHAIR SHOWER held HB 234 in committee for future consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB297 Slides.pptx |
SSTA 5/3/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 297 |
| PACIFIC DATAPORT BACKGROUND.pdf |
SSTA 5/3/2022 3:30:00 PM |
|
| Tribal Letters to Sec. Raimondo - Combo File.pdf |
SSTA 5/3/2022 3:30:00 PM |
|
| PDI - Connecting Rural Alaska - AK Senate Rural Affairs 5.3.22.pdf |
SSTA 5/3/2022 3:30:00 PM |