Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120
03/17/2010 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB386 | |
| HB287 | |
| HB409 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 287 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 409 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 386 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 409 - CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES
1:57:20 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 409, "An Act relating to state election
campaigns, the duties of the Alaska Public Offices Commission,
the reporting and disclosure of expenditures and independent
expenditures, the filing of reports, and the identification of
certain communications in state election campaigns; and
providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was
CSHB 409(STA).]
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, speaking as the chair of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee, sponsor of HB 409, explained that
CSHB 409(STA) is intended to address the U.S. Supreme Court
decision on Citizens United. The legislation isn't about the
decision itself, but rather about letting constituents
throughout the state know who contributes and makes expenditures
in corporations and unions. He explained that the Citizens
United decision basically established corporations and unions as
persons and thus they can contribute and make individual
expenditures as would individual candidates so long as that
independent decision isn't coordinated with a candidate or an
entity putting together an initiative. Representative Lynn
expressed concern about foreign nationals who are part of the
decision-making process in terms of [the candidates] and/or
initiatives they will support or oppose. Language in HB 409
addresses some of those concerns. Representative Lynn pointed
out that with elections around the corner time is of the essence
with this legislation.
2:00:22 PM
MIKE SICA, Staff, Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking as staff to the House State Affairs
Standing Committee, sponsor, informed the committee that Alaska
is one of twenty-four states developing disclosure and
disclaimer laws regarding independent expenses by corporations,
labor unions, and limited liability companies (LLCs). He
explained that in many of the sections of HB 409, the
legislation specifies a definition of "person" that includes
"corporations, companies, partnership, firm, associations,
organizations, business trust society, natural person, union".
He pointed out that Section 4, the disclosure section, and
Section 11, the disclaimer section, are the [major focus] of HB
409. Mr. Sica then turned to the aforementioned U.S. Supreme
Court ruling in which it specifies that the federal government
can still prohibit foreign nationals from being involved in
federal and state election campaigns through independent
expenditures. The legislation before the committee addresses
that matter in HB 409 by condensing the federal law while
basically accomplishing what the ruling requires. He related
his belief that any federal preemption problems with the federal
government are addressed by placing in state code the language
of the federal law.
MR. SICA then highlighted various changes made in the prior
committee. On page 5, Section 10 originally included the
ability to make anonymous expenditures in certain restricted
circumstances. However, the aforementioned was deleted in CSHB
409(STA). He pointed out that the language on page 6, Section
11(a)(2)(D) requires that corporations, unions, and LLCs that
utilize an audio and video component of their campaign or
independent expenditure advertisement clearly identify the name
and city and state of residence of the top three contributors.
He noted that requirements surrounding communications continues
in Section 12, on page 7, of CSHB 409(STA).
CHAIR RAMRAS inquired as to whether the term ["easily
discernable"] is in existing law. He also inquired as to its
definition, noting that the "paid for" portion of an
advertisement can be done very quickly.
MR. SICA stated that the term is being added.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN offered his understanding that the term
means a person of normal hearing can understand what's being
said.
CHAIR RAMRAS questioned how quickly someone can speak and remain
[easily discernable].
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO questioned whether [easily discernable]
refers to an unaltered voice speed.
2:08:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred with Representative Gatto
that [the term should refer to an unaltered voice speed] such
that it should be heard and understood. Representative
Gruenberg noted that this term was added by an amendment he
proposed. He then pointed out that on page 7, line 16,
following "The" the term "three" should be inserted as that was
part of the amendment adopted in the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
MR. SICA directed the committee's attention to the language on
page 7, lines 8-9, which refers to Section 11(a)(2)(D) on page
6. The language in Section 11(a)(2)(D) on page 6, lines 20-21,
specify that it's the "three largest contributors".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG acknowledged that point.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked if in a television commercial, the top three
contributors have to be communicated via audio and video or just
in print on the screen.
MR. SICA offered his understanding that in a television
commercial the top three contributors would have to be
communicated via audio and [print on the screen]. This
requirement would allow a hearing impaired individual to see the
list and a visually impaired individual to hear the list.
CHAIR RAMRAS questioned why there's suddenly a requirement to
relate the information via audio, when that hasn't been the
practice in the past. He expressed concern that it's a "knee
jerk reaction" to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. He said that
he doesn't like "knee jerk legislation."
MR. SICA opined that it is drawn from the U.S. Supreme Court
decision, which he further opined seems to provide people as
much information as possible to make the best decisions
possible.
2:11:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN reminded the committee that this legislation
addresses the elective process, not selling items. He said he
doesn't believe trying to protect [and inform] voters is a "knee
jerk reaction"; it's important to know who is making
expenditures for or against a candidate or an issue.
CHAIR RAMRAS pointed out that candidates in the last election
cycle who had a television advertisement didn't have to say who
paid for the advertisement, while those with radio
advertisements were required to say who had paid for the
advertisement. He asked if Representative Lynn believes voters
haven't been aware who paid for advertisements in the past.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN indicated that he was amenable to an
amendment to change that proposed requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked if Representative Lynn would want
an individual running for office to disclose the top three
donors in even a 30 second advertisement.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that he brought forth the
amendment that inserted the provisions requiring the top three
contributors be listed in order to aid two classes of people:
the visually impaired and individuals who merely listen to the
television without watching it. In further response to
Representative Dahlstrom, Representative Gruenberg said that he
hadn't thought of addressing it prior. He noted that the timing
for listing the three names has amounted to eight seconds.
Representative Gruenberg then highlighted that under federal
law, advertisements for drugs must auditorily state all the
potential side effects, which takes much longer than eight
seconds. The aforementioned is required because people feel
it's important, which he said he believes is also the case for
elections.
MR. SICA interjected that the language "easily discernable" is
already in the code. He then directed the committee's attention
to page 8, lines 25-26, which is from where the language "easily
discernable" came.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM expressed concern with the lack of a
legal definition for "easily discernable" and the possibility
that it could lead to litigation. Although Representative
Dahlstrom related that she's supportive of full disclosure, she
pointed out that Alaska consists of various levels of education,
various cultures, and various languages.
2:16:46 PM
DON ETHERIDGE, Lobbyist, Alaska AFL-CIO, related that the Alaska
AFL-CIO is supportive of full disclosure. However, he expressed
concern that a forthcoming amendment is cumbersome for
organizations to fulfill the [requirement]. He informed the
committee that some of the [AFL-CIO] organizations have over
8,000 members scattered throughout the state, [all of] which
would have to be notified prior to collecting or making
expenditures. Currently, under law any of the membership of the
[AFL-CIO] can opt out of any political action contributions or
funds from their union dues being spent for political action,
which was the result of the Beck decision.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if Mr. Etheridge is referring to a
political action committee (PAC).
MR. ETHERIDGE confirmed that PACs are what [the AFL-CIO] uses
for political actions.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court
decision says that dues, not just PAC contributions, can be
contributed. He further pointed out that those who contribute
to PACs know that the funds are being [contributed to a
political campaign or issue], while those who pay dues don't
know whether dues funds are being used to contribute to a
political campaign or issue. Therefore, it's important, he
opined, to notify the dues payor.
MR. ETHERIDGE noted his agreement that the member who pays dues
has a right to know, but the language regarding "contributions"
is of concern because it would apply to PACs.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO opined that the legislation isn't
addressing PACs. However, he emphasized that currently there is
no law regarding knowledge of how the dues are spent.
MR. ETHERIDGE stated that the Alaska AFL-CIO doesn't have a
problem with the legislation, but is concerned with a potential
amendment that would extend this disclosure to any membership
contributions, dues, or fees and the PACs are contributions.
2:22:01 PM
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services Division,
Legislative Affairs Agency, offered to provide clarification
regarding the disclaimer provisions of CSHB 409(STA), proposed
AS 15.13.090(c)-(f). He explained that the language on page 7,
lines 12-13, which says "be read in a manner that is easily
heard", modifies audio communication. The language "placed in
the communication" refers to print or video. The aforementioned
language is utilized on page 8, lines 20-21. Mr. Bullard
clarified that although colloquially people "discern" things
with their ears, "to discern" is a visual function. Therefore,
audio communications must be read in a manner that's easily
heard. With regard to the discussion of effect on candidate
elections, he directed the committee to page 6, lines 11-12,
which specifies that the disclaimer applies only to a person
other than a candidate, individual, or political party.
2:23:44 PM
HOLLY HILL, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission
(APOC), pointed out that current regulation, 2 AAC 50.306, sets
out "clearly identified" as follows:
(2) in all audio, audio-visual, automated telephone,
or electronic communications, the information must be
(A) visual and of sufficient size and duration to be
read by the viewer;
(B) spoken and audible at the same volume as the
communication; or
(C) both visual and spoken, as set out in (A) and (B)
of this paragraph.
2:24:46 PM
JOHN PTACIN, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State Affairs
Section, Department of Law, began by reminding the committee
that any disclaimer and disclosure law that burdens free speech
is subject to strict scrutiny. He opined that proposed laws
must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling government
interest. Turning to CSHB 409(STA), Mr. Ptacin said that
Section 4 seeks more disclosure from corporations, companies,
and labor unions. Section 4 twice mentions a suspect
classification: "nationality". The legislation requires
officers, directors, and contributors to report their
nationality on APOC forms within 24 hours of making the
expenditure. He pointed out that the Citizens United case
didn't address whether there's a compelling government interest
to keep foreign influence out of political speech and candidate
elections. Therefore, he wasn't sure whether there's a
compelling government interest. Still, such classification is
subject to strict scrutiny because it may or may not burden free
speech and it's also a suspect classification.
MR. PTACIN explained that under federal law foreign nationals
aren't allowed to participate in the decision-making process for
such an expenditure. However, the addition of proposed AS
15.13.068 in CSHB 409(STA) further disallows foreign nationals
to make such an expenditure in a candidate election. Therefore,
the question becomes whether it's significant enough for a
corporation or labor union to specify, in APOC filings, that
they have foreign nationals acting as leaders in their
organizations despite the fact that the law already specifies
that they have nothing to do with the expenditure process. He
opined that the courts would have to address whether there's a
compelling government interest or real harm. Mr. Ptacin
informed the committee that with regard to proposed AS
15.13.068, he didn't see any conflict between the federal and
the proposed law. Although there may be some argument for field
preemption because there is substantial federal regulation in
this area, he didn't believe that federal preemption should be
an issue for Section 8.
MR. PTACIN then turned attention to Section 10 of CSHB 409(STA),
which requires that the MacIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
decision be placed back in the legislation. Under the U.S.
Constitution some expenditures should remain anonymous. He
identified those anonymous expenditures as leaf letting. He
moved on to Section 12, which includes a provision regarding
precertification speech that isn't defamatory. The
aforementioned provision may be too onerous of a burden to place
on an officer of a corporation or labor union. He mentioned
that Section 12 includes a requirement that foreign government
ownership be disclosed in advertisements if the foreign
government owns 10 percent of the advertisement. Again, the
court may be called upon to vet whether there's a compelling
government interest or not, particularly given that foreign
nationals can't be part of the expenditures process.
MR. PTACIN highlighted that the legislation proposes that the
expenditure be reported within 24 hours of an expenditure being
made, incurred, or authorized. Given that standard, the 24-hour
rule would require close accounting from third-party vendors.
The reporting accuracy may or may not suffer under the 24-hour
standard. He pointed out that the 10-day standard allows
entities making these types of expenditures time to obtain a
fair and accurate report before filing with APOC. Furthermore,
the 24-hour filing proposed by CSHB 409(STA) would result in a
lot of single filings that could've been avoided with the 10-day
rule that allows multiple independent expenditures on one form.
Mr. Ptacin questioned whether the 24-hour rule is the most
appropriate approach to obtain the most clear and accurate
filings to the public. In closing, Mr. Ptacin offered his
belief that wherever [HB 409] can provide clarity, the better
enforceability of these laws will result.
2:31:11 PM
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, Director, Governmental & Legislative
Affairs, Teamsters Local 959, related support for CSHB 409(STA).
If requirements are made of a corporation, she expected those
same requirements to be placed on labor organizations. However,
labor organizations are a bit different in that it has members
versus stockholders. Ms. Huff Tuckness opined that CSHB
409(STA) creates a level playing field for all.
CHAIR RAMRAS, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 409, and relayed that CSHB
409(STA) would be set aside.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB386 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 386 |
| 02 HB386 Bill v. A.pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 386 |
| 03 HB386 Overview.pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 386 |
| 04 HB386-LAW-CRIM-03-12-10.pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 386 |
| 05 HB386 Amendments 2010 03 15.pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 386 |
| 01 HB409(STA) Sponsor Statement v. S.pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 409 |
| 02 HB409 HSTA CS v. S.pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 409 |
| 03 HB409(STA) v. S Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 409 |
| 04 HB409 Legal Memo for CS 409(STA).pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 409 |
| 05 HB409 AG Legal Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 409 |
| 06 HB409-1-1-031210-ADM-Y.pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 409 |
| 07 HB409 NCSL states respond to Supreme Court ruling.pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 409 |
| 08 HB409 news stories and opinions.pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 409 |
| 09 HB0409-1-1-031210-ADM-Y.pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 409 |
| 10 HB409 AARP ltr of support.pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 409 |
| 11 HB409 Explaination of changes.pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 409 |
| 12 HB409 HJUD Amendment S.4.pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 409 |
| 13 HB409 HJUD Amendment S.5.pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 409 |
| 14 HB409 HJUD Amendment S.7.pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 409 |
| 15 HB409 HJUD Conceptual Amendment.pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 409 |
| 16 HB409 HJUD Amendment S.2.pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 409 |