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 245-POLITICAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
3:06:55 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 245, "An Act relating to political
contribution limits; and providing for an effective date."
3:07:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, introduced HB 245. He paraphrased the sponsor
statement [included in the committee packet], which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
HB 245 restores reasonable and common-sense limits on
how much money individuals and groups can contribute
to political candidates in State elections. Alaskans
have repeatedly shown a preference for low limits on
contributions to candidate, and in the absence of HB
245, or similar legislation, contributions may become
limitless in upcoming elections. Campaign
contributions are one of the most obvious ways that
wealthy individuals and corporations try to corrupt
politicians to serve their interests rather than the
interests of all Alaskans. Alaska has historically
recognized this risk in campaign contributions and
since 1973 has restricted how much individuals can
donate to politicians.
Between 2006 and 2021, Alaska Statutes placed that
limits at $500 over the course of a calendar year. In
2021, however, the United Stated Court of Appeals for
th
the 9 Circuit ruled that limit unconstitutional. The
Court argued that because $500 was unusually low,
applied to all state races, and was not indexed wit
inflation to grow over time, that it infringed on
donors freedom of speech and gave and unfair
advantage to incumbents. In the aftermath of the
decision, Alaskas Public Office Commission set the
individual-to-candidate limit at $1,500. The people of
Alaska must have a say on what the limit is, and new
legislation is required unless we risk no limit at
all.
HB 245 addresses the courts concerns by repealing AS
15.13.070(c) and replacing it with new language. The
original $500 limit passed by 71% approval among
voters in 2006 is closer to $700 in todays dollars.
HB 245 uses that adjustment as the new limit on
candidates to the State House. Limits on individuals
rise accordingly to $1,000 for candidates to the
Senate, and $1,500 to candidates for Governor. The new
law satisfies the Courts constitutionality test by
adjusting for inflation and differentiating the limits
for different levels of public office.
In addition to restoring common-sense limits on how
much money someone can give to a political candidate,
HB 245 restores an urgently needed limit on how much
candidates can raise from out-of-state contributors.
Alaskans are highly attuned to the threat of
corruption in our state politics. Out-of-state
interests sometimes compete with Alaskan interests and
the will of the voters. In order to both satisfy the
Courts decision that the old non-resident limit was
unconstitutional and fight the appearance of
corruption in our elections, HB 245 would limit
candidates to raising no more than 50% of their money
from out-of-state. I urge your support to bring these
reforms to Alaska.
3:15:18 PM
MAX KOHN, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Josephson, prime
sponsor, provided a PowerPoint presentation, titled "Campaign
Contribution Limits" [hard copy included in the committee
packet]. He began with the sectional analysis on slide 2, which
outlined Section 1 of HB 245: contribution limits on
individuals. He said Section 1 follows the original framework
th
that was struck down by the 9 Circuit Court of Appeals.
Instead of a flat $500 limit on individuals, HB 245 provides
that an individual can give $700 to a House candidate, $1,000 to
a Senate candidate, $1,500 to a candidate for governor, $1,000
to groups or PACs that give directly to candidates, and $5,000
to political parties.
3:16:54 PM
MR. KOHN turned to slide 3, which outlined Section 2 of HB 245:
Limits on groups that are not political parties. He indicated
that Section 2 doubles the contributions limits outlined in
section 1; therefore, a group could give $1,400 to a House
candidate, $2,000 to a Senate candidate, $3,000 to a candidate
for governor, $2,000 to groups, and $10,000 to political
parties.
3:17:44 PM
MR. KOHN continued to Section 4 (slide 4): Joint campaigns for
governor and lieutenant governor. He explained that an
individual could give $3,000 to a joint campaign, while a group
could give $6,000. Section 5, he said, pertains to indexing for
inflation and Section 6 limits nonresident contributions to 50
percent of a candidates total contributions during the campaign
(slide 5). He said the rationale for the 50 percent limit came
from Ballot Measure 2 [2020], which requires an independent
expenditure to publicly disclose financial information if they
raise more than 50 percent of their money from out of state.
3:19:51 PM
MR. KOHN highlighted the goal of HB 245 on slide 6 as follows:
To maintain the spirit of previous law and Alaskans preferences
as closely as possible while staying in the confines of the
Constitution. Combat corruption and the appearance of
corruption in our elections. He advanced to slide 7, titled
History of Campaign Contribution Limits in Alaska, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
1974: AK Leg passes $1,000 contribution limit. 1996:
Legislature lowers the limit to $500 to pre-empt a
ballot initiative.
2003: Legislature raises the limit back to $1,000.
2006: Ballot initiative passes with 73% support for
limit to be lowered back to $500.
2021: Thompson v. Hebdon9thCircuit finds Alaska's
$500 limit unconstitutional and APOC reverts to $1,000
+ inflation = $1,500.
MR. KOHN proceeded to slide 8, which depicted a timeline of
the legislative history. Slide 9 provided the historical
limits in todays dollars. He pointed out that the limit
of $1,000 that was passed in 1974 is equivalent to $5,900
in todays dollars; further, he highlighted the 2006 limit
of $500, which was passed by a citizens ballot initiative,
indicating that it would equate to about $697 after
indexing for inflation.
3:21:12 PM
MR. KOHN summarized slides 10-13, noting the difficulty of
comparing contribution limits by state, as the structure
typically differs. He pointed out that Montanas law was also
th
challenged and ended up in the 9 Circuit Court of Appeals. He
conveyed that the limits displayed for Montana on slide 13 were
th
upheld by the 9 Circuit using the same test they applied to
Alaska. He emphasized that the contribution limits proposed in
HB 245 would not be radical compared to other states.
3:24:06 PM
MR. KOHN summarized slide 14, titled Alaskans prefer low
limits, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
There have been two ballot initiatives to lower
limits and reduce nonresident influence over Alaskan
elections.
The 1995 initiative quickly gained 32,000
signatures and put pressure on the legislature to pass
a similar bill.
The Anchorage Daily News published this quote
at the time:
"VECO's Pete Leathardsaid he fears the
initiative might diminish the industry's influence."
The 2006 Ballot Initiative went to the ballot and
passed with 71% of voters approving the measure.
3:24:57 PM
MR. KOHN reviewed APOC disclosures in the 2018 governors race
to independent expenditures on slide 15. He noted that prior to
Ballot Measure 2 [2020], independent expenditures were not
regulated and could accept money from anywhere in the country.
He reported that in 2018, 71 percent of the funding came from
out-of-state residents totaling nearly $5 million, whereas 29
percent came from Alaska residents. He noted that Ballot
Measure 2 addressed this problem, adding that per the Courts,
the legislature has less power to regulate independent
expenditures than it does with contributions directly to
candidates. Without HB 245, he said, independent expenditures
would be regulated more than direct contributions to candidates
due to the 50 percent disclosure requirement.
3:26:39 PM
MR. KOHN addressed constitutionality on slide 16, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
? HB 245 passes contribution limit tests laid out in
Randall v. Sorrell.
? The previous $3,000 aggregate nonresident limit was
found unconstitutional. The judge's opinion in the
case also noted "while we do not foreclose the
possibility that a state could limit out-of-state
contributions in furtherance of an anti-corruption
interest, Alaska's aggregate limit on what a candidate
may receive is a poor fit." (Thompson v. Hebdon)
MR. KOHN conveyed the bill sponsors beliefs that the
contribution limits are constitutional; further, despite the
Courts indication that the $3,000 aggregate limit is
unconstitutional, he noted that they have not tested a similar
law to the 50 percent requirement.
3:28:01 PM
MR. KOHN turned to slide 17, titled 9th Circuit Thompson v.
Hebdon, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
? The court considered five primary factors for the
contribution limit:
1. Does the limit "significantly restrict the amount
of funding available for challengers to run
competitive campaigns?" Yes
2. Are political parties subject to the same low
limits as individuals? No
3. Are volunteer services counted toward contribution
limits? No
4. Are the limits indexed for inflation? No
5. Is there a "special justification" for a uniquely
low limit? No
3:30:05 PM
MR. KOHN turned to slide 18, titled Constitutionality of this
Bill: Limits on Individuals, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
? 1. Does the limit "significantly restrict the amount
of funding available for challengers to run
competitive campaigns?" This factor is improved
? 2. Are political parties subject to the same low
limits as individuals? This factor was already
satisfactory
? 3. Are volunteer services counted toward
contribution limits? This factor was already
satisfactory
? 4. The limits are now indexed for inflation. This
factor is improved
? 5. The limit is no longer uniquely low. This factor
is improved
3:31:06 PM
MR. KOHN concluded on slide 19, titled Empirical Evidence,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
? Empirical studies have found links between large
contributions and public trust in government.
? One study found that "a large majority of Americans
believe that the campaign finance system contributes
to corruption in government."
? Perceptions of Corruption and Campaign Finance: When
Public Opinion Determines Constitutional Law, 153 U.
Pa. Law Review 119, 120 (2004)
Another found that "members' dependency on outside
contributions draws them in a more extremely liberal
or extremely conservative ideological direction that
is counter to the ideological preferences of the
districts they represent."
? Getting Short-Changed? The Impact of Outside Money
on District Representation, 97 Social Science
Quarterly
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited additional comments from
Representative Josephson.
3:31:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON, referencing a provision in [SB 155]
sponsored by Senator Wielechowski, suggested that the governor
should not be allowed to solicit and receive contributions
during a legislative session. He indicated that he would
welcome such an amendment should the committee propose one.
3:32:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR agreed with the undue influence of
contributions. She expressed concern about the impact of
raising the out-of-state contribution limit to 50 percent for a
House raise and inquired about the rationale behind that
provision.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON agreed with her concern. He explained
that the intent is to show deference to the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals, as the Court had been opposed to the $3,000 limit. He
opined that that its un-Alaskan if more than 50 percent of a
candidates contributions are coming from out of state.
3:34:25 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 245 was held over.
3:34:33 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.