Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/19/2018 03:15 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 | |
| HJR30 | |
| HJR11 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HJR 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 11 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HJR 11-CONGRESS: OVERTURN CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC
3:25:12 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 11, Supporting action to
overturn the decision of the United States Supreme Court in
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310
(2010); and urging the United States Congress to pass
legislation overturning the decision of the United States
Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,
thereby restoring free and fair elections in the United States.
3:25:35 PM
MAGDALENA OLIVERAS, Staff, Representative Geran Tarr, Alaska
State Legislature, advised that HJR 11 urges the United States
Congress to overturn the United States Supreme Court Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission, [558 U.S. 310 (2010)],
decision which removed restrictions on the amounts of
independent political spending. She advised that Citizens
United is a 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization founded
in 1988. In 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled in
Citizens United that corporations and unions can give an
unlimited amount of money to political election campaigns.
Thereby overturning the foundation of America's campaign finance
laws which, up until that time, prevented the wealthiest
individuals and large corporations from undue influence over the
American political system. The fact of the matter, she offered,
is that large corporations own much of the American economy and
wealth. The decision in 2010 allowed large corporations and the
wealthiest people in the nation to heavily influence campaigns
at all levels of the nation's governments. The Citizens United
decision relies on the idea that corporations are people, that
money is speech, and that the ability to donate undisclosed
amounts of money to politicians is not a form of (indisc.).
This [decision] is not the vision our American Founding Fathers
had for this country or for its federal government, but rather
it is actually the complete opposite. American democracy is
where all people, regardless of income, can participate in the
political process and run for office because American democracy
is one person/one vote and that equal access is essential.
3:27:37 PM
MS. OLIVERAS stated that returning to a government of, by, and
for the people, will not be easy, but a movement has been
building all over the country. It is important, she pointed
out, that the members of the legislature recognize that this is
not a partisan issue, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents,
all across the country are coming together to say, "enough is
enough." She advised that 19 states have gone on record in
favor of adopting a United States Constitutional Amendment in
order to restore power to the United States Congress and to our
50-states by putting limits on campaign spending. At the local
level, more than 700 local governments have demanded
constitutional action to re-instate controls on campaign
spending. She then pointed to the letters of support the
sponsor's office received from all areas of the state and from
people registered with different parties who are coming together
for this American cause. She noted that letters of support have
been received from most of the community councils in the
Anchorage area, together with other parts of the state.
3:28:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, added that
during her time in the legislature, her goal has been looking
for opportunities to increase voter participation and increase
participation in "our government," such as, same day voter
registration and PFD voter registration. Contrary to that goal,
she pointed out, so much money is being spent in campaigns that
people are tuning out and do not want to participate due to the
number of commercials on television, the number of mailers
received at their homes, and so forth. Her concern, she
remarked, is that if the financial ability and influence of
corporations and billionaires is not limited, it will cause
people to not participate because they are turned off to the
process. There is so much negative campaigning that they feel
nothing is true, and those beliefs can damage America's
democracy, she described, and this resolution is essential to
civic participation.
3:30:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP related that the problem with campaigning
is that there is no truth in advertising any longer, people do
not have any idea whether truth is in any message. He said that
he imagines the amounts of money Representative Tarr mentioned
probably lean toward that issue. There are truth in advertising
laws that are completely ignored and he is hopeful that at some
point, pursuing such a resolution will get the nation back to
truth in advertising.
3:30:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that he does not support HJR 11. He
countered that the issue about too many dollars in campaigns,
too many brochures in the mailbox, and too many people showing
up at a person's home to talk about issues, is that it is a free
country and free speech is a bedrock principle. This principle
allows the public an opportunity to hear from everyone, and if
the public so chooses to write a check and support someone in
one manner or another, and they have every right. He offered
that he could not find any good reason to support this
resolution urging the United States Congress to overturn the
Citizens United decision.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, in contrasting Representative Birch's
comments, pointed out that Alaska does have campaign finance
limitations. To the extent an individual wants to participate,
they can donate up to $500 per year per candidate, and there are
limitations on political action committee (PAC) donations. She
offered her belief that legislators do not want to limit the
ability for that participation, but she questions whether there
is value in having unlimited participation or value in allowing
those unlimited dollars. Her questions are not so much about
whether that activity happens, but rather her questions are
whether there are reasonable limits the legislature can place on
to make sure there is more truth in advertising. Thereby, she
remarked, people receive accurate information and receive the
government they want to support.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH commented that he does not see it favorably
for the government to intervene in deciding what sort of limits
or constraints it may want to put on that level of speech. The
fact that it is speech, he opined, the legislature needs to walk
carefully in any effort to constrain that level of
communication, he said.
3:34:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON commented that he has not yet read the
Citizens United decision, but it is his understanding that the
decision allows donations to come in from out of the country and
strikes him as not particularly uncanny that there was meddling
in the 2016 election. The State of Alaska's financial
limitation of a $500 donation was challenged in the United
States District of Alaska, and the Honorable Judge Timothy
Burgess affirmed Alaska's right to have that limit. He opined
that the decision is now headed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He advised that former Alaska
House of Representatives David Finkelstein testified in support
of the existing law and was involved in the creation of that law
in the late 1980s/early 1990s, he advised. This law has served
Alaska well because, although it has plenty of money in
politics, the power of the individual has been supreme, and a
person's voice cannot be drowned out completely by the sound of
corporate money. He remarked that he has grave concerns about
the Citizens United decision and finds it appropriate to refer
to Presidents George Washington, James Madison, and The
Federalist Papers because he suspects that decision is not what
they had in mind or could have even envisioned. He said that he
supports CSHJR 11.
3:36:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether the Citizens United decision
meant that corporations could donate any amount of money, and
whether this resolution attempts to put a limit on the amount of
the donation.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that there has been more than the
Citizens United decision, "they have had influence over
political spending and campaigns." It is the unlimited nature
and the non-disclosure issue which are the two key elements that
are problematic. She advised that in 2006, $286 million was
spent on campaigns by Super-PACs, non-profits, unions, and
political organizations, and by 2016, that figure had grown to
$1.6 billion spent on campaigns.
3:37:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL commented that he realizes the system is not
what it should be and while he knows the Citizens United
decision was close, if it had gone the other way there wouldn't
be as much spending. He asked, who is doing the spending, PACs
do not disclose the individuals, but there is too much spent on
the overall game. He would like there to be a one-month
election period where everyone receives a set amount. Changes
need to be made and if this resolution helps, it is good, he
said.
3:38:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR added that for the members of Congress, it
is estimated that they spend 20-30 hours a week on fundraising.
When considering some of the gridlock in Washington D.C., and
possibly why some things are not getting done, she questioned
whether this pressure to raise so much money has changed the
context in which everyone is operating, and that is another
manner wherein the nation's democracy is impacted.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned whether the opposite could be
said, that if Super-PACs allowed under the Citizens United
decision were done away with, that the members of Congress might
actually have to spend more time fundraising.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that part of the motivation for
this is getting to a point where there is less money, whether it
be through independent expenditures or Super-PACs, which, she
advised, is not quite as important as the overall influence of
unlimited dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX re-stated her question and asked that if
members of Congress are spending 20-30 hours a week fundraising
and the Citizens United decision was overturned, donations from
independent expenditures and Super-PACs would not be allowed,
how would that affect the amount of time members of Congress
spend fundraising.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that if Candidate A had a well-
financed opponent in that Candidate B received support from the
Super-PACs in the amounts of $10 million and $100 million, that
would put more pressure on Candidate A to keep up and compete
with that level of fundraising. In that regard, Candidate A
would have to spend more time fundraising to match Candidate B's
time and money because Candidate A did not have donations from a
Super-PAC. She acknowledged circumstances where those two
things are not the same in terms of knowledge by a candidate
versus totally independent money going directly to a campaign
versus money spent to influence voters about that particular
candidate.
3:41:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR then referred CSHJR 11, labeled 30-LS0274\D,
page 2, lines 20-25, which read as follows:
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature,
together with the people of the state, calls upon the
United States Congress to prepare and present to the
states for ratification an amendment to the United
States Constitution clarifying that corporations do
not have the rights of individuals, that expenditures
of money are not to be protected as speech, and that
the authority to regulate campaign finances lies with
elected representatives of the people of the United
States.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR advised that there is an evolving approach
as to how to address this issue in terms of what mechanism to
use in overturning the decision. Currently, she explained,
there is a move towards looking at a constitutional amendment
process ratified by individual states.
3:43:21 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opined that conventional wisdom is that
generally, the labor movement donates more to left-of-center
candidates, and corporations donate to the right-of-center
candidates. He asked whether it is fair to say that were the
decision to be reversed, that that would allow for limits placed
on the independent expenditures of both unions and corporations.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied that Chair Kreiss-Tomkins was
correct, and in that sense, the reversal would have equal
impact.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS commented that he shares Representative
Birch's concern that if a candidate was coming up against "the
buzz saw of a huge amount of unlimited money" it does not
necessarily appear fair to either side of the political
spectrum.
3:45:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the Citizens United decision
interprets a federal law, or whether it was strictly based on
constitutional grounds. She referred to Version D, page 2,
lines 15-19, and noted that it urges the United States Congress
to pass legislation overturning the decision. She advised that
if the United States Supreme Court ruled that something was
unconstitutional, she did not believe the United States Congress
could pass a law and decide that it was constitutional,
"period." She related that if she is correct, the Further
Resolved clause [page 2, lines 20-25] makes sense, but not
necessarily the Be It Resolved clause [page 2, lines 15-19].
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that there are a couple of
different ways people have approached this issue in terms of
making positive changes. The constitutional amendment would re-
define free speech to be limited to individual human beings and
it would not apply to corporations and unions. Absent that, she
explained, a person could otherwise look at laws that are about
fair campaigns and improving elections.
3:46:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked that if the Citizens United decision
was eliminated from this equation, could an individual make
unlimited contributions to an independent expenditure group,
such as George Soros on the left, and the Koch brothers on the
right.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR related that she wanted to be careful in
answering that question because if the entity can do the
unlimited spending because corporations are defined as people,
to not limit the peoples free speech right. Backing up, she
said, where the money comes from to support that unlimited
spending from a wealthy individual, there are a couple of things
that would influence that because there are existing campaign
laws. Those laws are why the Super-PACs become so important
because those funds are bundled up, wherein people otherwise
have to operate under existing contribution limits. She offered
that by bundling all of that money together, the unlimited
spending would come from the Super-PAC. She stressed that she
wanted to double-check and make sure she has a complete
understanding of Representative LeDoux's question that if the
unlimited money is coming from the entity, how it would
otherwise limit the individual person's ability to donate.
3:48:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that if unlimited money is banned
coming from an entity, a wealthy person who wished to make
contributions could make those contributions on a personal
level.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that currently, there are
restrictions about an individual's ability to donate. For
example, under Alaska's campaign laws an individual can only
donate $500 per calendar year to each candidate. Under this
mechanism, the money is not moving from an individual into a
candidate's campaign, the money is moving into this other pot
through the Super-PAC and then being distributed through that
entity. An individual contributes to a campaign under both
federal and state limits, for example, a presidential campaign
has a $4,000 limit per person. She reiterated that there are
limits on individuals donating to a candidate's campaigns, but
under this other mechanism where the individual is putting the
money into the bigger pot of money, the unlimited spending is
the problem.
3:49:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON commented that the sponsor is correct,
there are limits on an individual person's capacity to donate,
which in some respects makes the Citizens United decision even
more onerous. He opined that the thinking behind the decision
was that as long as there is no coordination between the PAC and
the campaign, it somehow cleanses the process.
3:50:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH opined that Michael Bloomberg in New York
put as much as $260 million to $270 million of his personal
money into the unprecedented 3 terms that he ran wherein he
started out as a democrat and switched to become a republican.
He said, "I don't know that we're going to prohibit that being
separate."
REPRESENTATIVE TARR related that that is yet another category of
spending where "you have different things that you, as an
individual, can do to invest in your own campaign."
3:51:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL, in response to Representative Birch, opined
that (audio difficulties) gave Barack Obama's campaign $1
million of his own dollars, and it seems like he wrote a check
"person to candidate for a campaign."
REPRESENTATIVE TARR related that that is yet another challenge
in understanding what is going on with campaigns, the
presidential campaigns have multiple organizations and she would
have to check on that particular donation.
3:52:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL commented that someone had suggested to him
that Alaska should only allow contributions from individuals who
actually live in Alaska, there would be no corporate or union
donations, simply people giving to the candidate at whatever
limit is allowed by law. He related that that concept would
certainly strip out all of the noise, but he did not know
whether it would work on a national level. Corporations do not
vote, individuals vote, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that currently, someone is suing
to increase Alaska's campaign contribution laws, and when
considering a legislator's role and how to ensure that people
have equal access, "we are really founded on a one person/one
vote foundation." The perception, she opined, is that when
there is too much spending, it erodes one person/one vote
because one wealthy voice can drown out so many other smaller
and poorer voices. Alaska's limits for out-of-state
contributions are fairly low, she offered, (audio difficulties)
and it may be double that amount for the others. These days,
candidates are spending $100,000 and $250,000 on their House of
Representatives campaigns, so that influence of a few thousand
dollars probably isn't substantial, she opined. In the event a
person is from a national group that wants to set a precedent on
a policy or have influence, Alaska might be a place to go
because their dollars can stretch farther than in other areas.
There is reason for concern about the dollars coming in from the
Lower-48, maybe not so much on the individual campaigns but more
on the initiatives and other efforts. Alaskans do not feel that
residents of another state should try to dictate Alaska policy,
she said.
3:55:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered concern about overturning the
Citizens United decision. Alaska's current campaign
contribution laws makes it more difficult, to a certain extent,
for people to raise money for campaigns. It is more expensive
to get a candidate's name out there if they are not an
incumbent. For example, the United States Congress incumbents
have the ability to send out mail, "the privilege of the Frank,
which I never knew how important that could be until I started
sending out legislative newsletters and figured out how
expensive it was." Incumbents can send out mail to their
constituents without being charged whereas someone challenging
an incumbent will spend many, many dollars on those sorts of
things. When discussing the United States Congress, and the
United States Senate, there are many very, very wealthy people
who could easily write out multi-million-dollar checks to their
own campaigns. Therefore, "you" make it more difficult for
people to raise money from other sources, "those people and
Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court, I think, has said, you
know, clearly and emphatically that you can't, you know, that
it's one thing to put a campaign expenditure or a contribution
limit on the outside or a contributor but you can't do it on the
candidate themselves. That that is inherent to free speech.
So, when a multi-millionaire, like John Kerry, I can't think of
too many right now, but I know, you go and you list, you take a
look and you see what the net worth of our U.S. Senators are in
this country and most of them are folks who could actually write
a couple of $1 million checks. So, the minute you make it more
difficult for people to raise money, then the folks who could
simply write a check are at a huge advantage, even more of an
advantage than normal."
REPRESENTATIVE TARR acknowledged that Representative LeDoux made
some good points, some points related to CSHJR 11, but some of
her points speak to other issues that should probably be
addressed in the state's overall governance in terms of access
to being a candidate. She noted that some people support
publically financed campaigns for that reason, for example,
everyone has equal access to the same number of dollars and
media. Interestingly, she offered, when comparing the
scenarios, in Alaska if someone donates $51 to a candidate, the
candidate must declare their name, employer, and profession.
Except here, the discussion is about people being able to donate
millions and millions of dollars in an undisclosed manner. She
described that that is a such a contrast because if there is
such concern about the $51 donations due to the potential
perception of influence, shouldn't there be real concern about
the people who are spending millions, and millions, and millions
of dollars to have some sort of influence. She surmised that if
this money had to be disclosed, people might respond
differently, which is why it is described as "dark money."
4:00:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that she would be more
comfortable with a law or a resolution requiring disclosure of
the names of the people who donate to ballot initiatives or to
the independent expenditure campaigns. She said she would like
to see transparency and she is not necessarily all that
concerned with the dollar figure itself.
4:00:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to Version D, page 2, lines
11-14, and noted that it refers to a state election to affirm
contribution limits in some manner and asked the date.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that she believes it was the work
of former Representative David Finkelstein in the early 1990s,
but she would research its exact date.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS commented that he has a vague recollection
there was an initiative in 1998 or 2000.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX recalled that there was an initiative in
the same election year Sarah Palin became the governor.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, in response to Representative Josephson,
offered her belief that it references the earlier campaign
finance laws, but she would perform research and get back to the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that the campaign finance laws
changed in 2006 wherein everything was halved. Prior to 2006,
PACs could give $2,000 and individuals could give $1,000, to a
voter initiative. She opined that was spearheaded by former
Representative Eric Croft and it went down to $1,500.
4:02:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH objected to a previous comment that a
candidate would respond to communications that would favor those
who are contributors. On a personal note, he said, he literally
responds to every email and phone call that comes across the
threshold. He related that he does not know anyone in this
building that is put together such that they would screen their
communications in a manner that favors those who are
contributors or supporters, and he did not think that was a fair
characterization.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR related that she appreciates Representative
Birch's comments in being careful in how issues are stated, and
she agrees 100 percent. Unfortunately, she opined, it is the
public perception that candidates are up against and not the
reality of "actually how we operate."
4:03:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL moved to adopt CSHJR 11, labeled 30-
LS0274\D, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH objected. He said, "I just don't think
this is a good idea."
4:04:31 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Josephson, Knopp,
Wool, LeDoux and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of the adoption
of CSHJR 11, Version D. Representative Birch voted against it.
Therefore, CSHJR 11, Version D, was adopted by a vote of 5-1.
[HJR 11 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR030 Sponsor Statement 2.28.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/19/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR030 ver D 2.28.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/19/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR30 Fiscal Note LEG 4.9.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/19/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR30 Supporting Testimony 4.12.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/19/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR011 Sponsor Statement 3.21.2018.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 11 |
| HJR011A.PDF |
HSTA 4/19/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 11 |
| HJR11 Fiscal Note LEG 04.16.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 11 |
| HJR011 Supporting Document - Federal legislation Citizens United.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 11 |
| HJR011 Supporting Document Community Councils Letters of Support.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 11 |
| HJR011 Supporting Document Sharman Haley Op-Ed.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 11 |
| HJR011 Letters of Support 4.16.2018.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 11 |
| HJR011 Letter of Support Michael Patterson.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 11 |