Legislature(2023 - 2024)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/27/2023 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 | |
| SB138 | |
| SB17 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 17 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 138 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 17-CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
4:09:37 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 17
"An Act relating to political contributions; and providing for
an effective date."
4:10:17 PM
MATT LONGABAUGH, Staff, Senator Scott Kawasaki, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, introduced SB 17 by paraphrasing
the sponsor statement.
Alaska has long regulated campaign contributions and
limited the amount that can be donated to political
campaigns. Following the VECO scandal in 2006, the
people of Alaska approved a ballot initiative that
established strict contribution limits. Part of the
argument behind that initiative was that limiting the
amount of money candidates can raise would curb the
type of corruption seen during VECO.
In 2019 the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned
some of Alaska's political contribution limits in the
case Thompson v. Hebdon. The Thompson decision struck
down the limits, including the limits on contributions
from individuals, nongroup entities, nonpolitical
party entities, and joint campaigns for Governor and
Lieutenant Governor.
This bill establishes new campaign contribution limits
compliant with the Thompson decision. It increases
these limits such that they are nearly indexed for the
rate of inflation between 2006 and 2023. The limits
are rounded to the nearest hundred. Here are the new
limits:
• Individual contribution limits from $500 to $700
• Nonpolitical party group limits from $1,000 to
$1,400
• Nongroup entity limits from $1,000 to $1,400
• Individual limits to a joint candidacy for
Governor and Lieutenant Gov. from $1,000 to
$1,400
• Group limits to a joint candidacy for Governor
and Lieutenant Gov. from $2,000 to $2,800
The Thompson decision also stipulated that
contribution limits must be indexed for inflation. SB
17 requires APOC to index contribution limits for
inflation by regulation starting in 2024 and after
subsequent terms of four years.
4:11:58 PM
MR. LONGABAUGH presented the sectional analysis for SB 17.
Section 1. AS 15.13.070(b)
This amends the statute by increasing the individual
contribution limit from $500 to $700. This applies to
individuals donating to nongroup entities, candidates,
write-in candidates, or nonpolitical party groups.
Section 2. AS 15.13.070(c)
Amends the statute by increasing the contribution
limit for groups that are not political parties from
$1,000 to $1,400. This applies to nonpolitical party
groups donating to a candidate, a write-in candidate,
another group, a non-group entity, or a political
party.
Section 3. AS 15.13.070(f)
This section amends the statute by increasing the
amount nongroup entities can donate from $1,000 to
$1,400. This applies to nongroup entities donating to
another nongroup entity, to candidates, to write-in
candidates, to groups, or to political parties.
Section 4. AS 15.13.070(g)
This amends the statute by increasing the amount
individuals and groups can donate to joint
Gubernatorial and Lieutenant Gubernatorial campaigns.
It increases the amount individuals can donate from
$1,000 to $1,400, and groups from $2,000 to $2,800.
Section 5. AS 15.13.070(h)
This section adds a new subsection that indexes these
campaign limits to inflation. Starting in 2024, and
every term of four years thereafter, the commission
shall by regulation adjust these contribution limits
to account for inflation.
Section 6. Provides this bill with an immediate
effective date.
4:14:13 PM
MR. LONGABAUGH continued the introduction of SB 17 with a
PowerPoint, starting on slides 4-5.
A Brief History
• In 1995, citizens filed an initiative that
included lowering the limits on individual
campaign contributions from $1000 to $500.
• The legislature heard the call of the people
and enacted a new law before the initiative
came to fruition. The stated purpose of the new
law was "to restore the public's trust in the
electoral process and to foster good
government."
• Years later, the legislature raised the limit
back to $1,000.
• In 2006, the people once again filed an
initiative, and this time it came to be, lowering
the limits again to $500 with 73% support.
• In 2021, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled the limit unconstitutional.
• The Court argued that because $500 was
unusually low, applied to all state races, and
was not indexed with inflation to grow over
time, that it infringed on donors' freedom of
speech and gave an unfair advantage to
incumbents.
• In the aftermath of the decision, Alaska's
Public Office Commission set the individual-to-
candidate limit at $1,500.
SB 17's ceilings would roughly track inflation for
what Alaskans approved in 2006, though are a bit
higher.
4:16:16 PM
MR. LONGABAUGH advanced to slide 6.
How it Could Survive Legal Challenge
To review, The Ninth Circuit Court argued that, since
$500 was unusually low, applied to all state races,
and was not indexed with inflation to grow over time,
it infringed on donors' freedom of speech and gave an
unfair advantage to incumbents.
SB 17's limits are not unusually low and are indexed
with inflation to grow over time. Thus, it follows
from that ruling that these would survive a challenge
made on the same grounds as the last one.
In the 40 states that do have limits on contributions
to legislative candidates, the average is $2,848 per
election, ranging from $180 in Montana to $13,704 [in
Ohio]. Ours would be slightly higher or lower
depending on the source of the contributionnot
unusual.
4:17:36 PM
MR. LONGABAUGH continued to slide 7.
Reviewing the Increases
Section 1:
• Individuals: $500 >> $700 per year
Section 2:
• A non-political party group: $1000 >> $1,400 per
year
Section 3:
• Nongroup entity (such as XXX) : $1000 >> $1,400 per
year
Section 4 concerning Governor and Lt. Governor
campaigns:
• Individuals $1,000 >> $1,400; groups $2,000 >>
$2,800 per year
MR. LONGABAUGH advanced to slide 8.
You may be familiar with some related cases
In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014),
the court held that states cannot place limits on
aggregate contributions (the total of all
contributions to all candidates) by individuals or
groups. Existing limits on per-candidate contributions
were not addressed and thus not changed. (NCSL)
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
(2010), independent expenditures were at hand. SB 17
would not limit those.
4:19:09 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked why the individual contribution limits from
$500-$700 weren't higher.
MR. LONGABAUGH replied that the increase tracks the consumer
price index (CPI) and is the limit that was approved by ballot
initiative.
SENATOR CLAMAN summarized that the $500 limit is adjusted for
inflation.
MR. LONGABAUGH replied that it's at least tracked to inflation.
SENATOR CLAMAN questioned the reason that the presentation
didn't include the full explanation of the $1,500 individual-to-
candidate limit that APOC set and then withdrew under pressure.
It was noteworthy because that left basically no finance limits
in the last election.
MR. LONGABAUGH acknowledged that was omitted from the
presentation.
SENATOR CLAMAN pressed the point asking how the $1,500 was
relevant when APOC added it and then realized it was a bad idea
and withdrew it.
4:21:17 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked Mr. Lucas to discuss how APOC happened to
set the $1,500 limit, temporary though it was.
4:21:40 PM
TOM LUCAS, Campaign Disclosure Coordinator, Alaska Public
Offices Commission (APOC), Anchorage, Alaska, explained that the
$1,500 limit was APOC staff's attempt to accommodate the
Thompson decision. The commission withdrew the $1,500 limit
after it ultimately decided that any caps on the contribution
limits should be set by the legislature.
SENATOR CLAMAN recounted that the court criticized that
incumbents were advantaged by the structure of Alaska's
contribution limits. The limit was set as an annual limit as
opposed to a per campaign limit which favors incumbents because
they oftentimes start running the year before and challengers
often don't get involved until later so they're not fundraising
the first year. He asked the reason for not shifting to campaign
limits.
MR. LONGABAUGH responded that incumbents always have an
advantage and it doesn't seem to be tied to annual versus
campaign limits, but he would follow up after doing some
research on that point.
SENATOR CLAMAN observed that Alaska was told that its campaign
finance limits were unconstitutional and his perspective was
that the Ninth Circuit wasn't likely to find SB 17 very
different because it simply adjusts the limit to match
inflation.
CHAIR KAWASAKI reviewed the variety of what other states do with
campaign limits and posited that the legislature could decide
what policy to adopt. His perspective was that the general
opinion was that there is too much money in politics.
4:27:59 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI commented that the voters have
overwhelmingly said they want campaign contribution limits and
the court has said the limits are too low. He offered his
perspective that the limits should be as low as possible and
then inflation proofed. He said he appreciated the discussion.
4:29:18 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN asked if SB 17 would limit the amount a
candidate could contribute to their own campaign.
CHAIR KAWASAKI responded that the bill doesn't specifically
address that and he didn't believe the law currently limited the
amount a candidate could contribute to their own campaign. He
asked Mr. Lucas to comment.
4:30:14 PM
MR. LUCAS responded that the one exception is that a candidate
can only contribute an additional $5,000 to their own campaign
during the last 30 days before an election.
SENATOR CLAMAN asked what the laws are on how much a candidate
can loan to their campaign.
MR. LUCAS responded that a candidate's loan to their own
campaign is considered a contribution unless and until the
candidate files a report indicating they would like to be
reimbursed from the surplus funds at the end of the campaign.
The amount that can be reimbursed is limited depending on the
office the person is seeking. He offered to follow up with
information about the specific statute.
SENATOR CLAMAN said he didn't need the information.
4:33:14 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI set an amendment deadline and held SB 17 in
committee for future consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 17 Fiscal note.pdf |
SSTA 4/27/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 17 |
| SB17.Sponsor.Statement.04.26.24.pdf |
SSTA 4/27/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 17 |
| SB17.Sectional.Analysis.04.24.23.pdf |
SSTA 4/27/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 17 |
| SB 17 Fiscal note.pdf |
SSTA 4/27/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 17 |
| SB0017A.PDF |
SSTA 4/27/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 17 |
| SB0138A.PDF |
SSTA 4/27/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 138 |
| a. SB138.Omnibus Elections sponsor statement 04-26-23.pdf |
SFIN 5/9/2023 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/27/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 138 |
| SB 138 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SSTA 4/27/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 138 |
| SB 138 draft powerpoint.pdf |
SSTA 4/27/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 138 |
| SB 17 Presentation.1.pdf |
SSTA 4/27/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 17 |