Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/31/2003 01:38 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 89-LOBBYING/ LEGISLATIVE ETHICS
CHAIR SEEKINS reminded members that the committee would continue
taking public testimony on SB 89 today.
MR. STEVE CLEARY, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest
Research Group (AkPIRG), expressed opposition to SB 89. They
believe it would gut the lobbying regulations and don't feel
there are any problems with the current lobbying act. The
extensive discussion on a similar House bill shows confusion
about what lobbying is. It's erroneous to say that registration
limits on free speech he said.
AkPIRG's biggest concern with SB 89 is that it will exempt many
people who are lobbyists from having to register as lobbyists.
This will allow lobbyists to host fundraisers and donate to
political candidates who are outside of their legislative
districts.
MR. CLEARY said he reviewed the 2003 lobbyist directory and
found 3 volunteer lobbyists, 16 representational lobbyists, 65
professional lobbyists, and 96 employee lobbyists. It is the
employee lobbyists that will be exempted from regulation as
lobbyists, which will encourage more companies to employ in-
house lobbyists than to hire professional lobbyists. He said he
understands that small businesses need to be represented, but he
doesn't think the current regulations prohibit them from doing
that.
He repeated that AkPIRG's main concern is that SB 89 will allow
employee lobbyists to back up their lobbying with cash and
fundraisers.
SENATOR THERRIAULT commented that Mr. Cleary said SB 89 guts the
lobbyist statutes, yet he acknowledged that the paid
professional lobbyists are still covered by another section of
the bill and will not be impacted. In addition, Mr. Cleary
indicated the real problem is that a lobbyist, even one employed
by a company who lobbies more than four hours, would be able to
contribute to a campaign. He noted that contributions would have
to be fully disclosed and capped at $500. He asked Mr. Cleary
how it would harm the process if a mom and pop gift shop owner
spent more than four hours testifying on a piece of legislation
and talking to legislators and then wanted to contribute to a
Senate campaign and disclosed that. He said he spoke with APOC
staff last week that said it was always a bit nonsensical that
such a person is precluded from donating to a campaign since
disclosure would be required.
MR. CLEARY said he believes the four hour limit is a good one
and eliminating the ban on donating outside of one's election
district is of concern because they believe that influences the
process. That is the reason that bit of campaign finance reform
was instituted and has been upheld by the courts. Donations are
capped at $500 and must be disclosed, but whether a person
donates outside of his or her district is of importance because
it gives that lobbyist too much power.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said to be a lobbyist requires four hours and
one minute and the lobbyist then loses the right to participate
in the political process, even if the person is a small mom and
pop operator because the language in this bill does not impact
contract lobbyists. He again asked where the real danger is of a
small business owner wielding tremendous influence in the
legislative process, especially if that small business owner
must disclose his or her contributions.
MR. CLEARY replied the danger is not from small businesses
wielding more power. To talk to your own legislator is
participating in the political process, but to talk to
legislators in an attempt to change something for your business
is lobbying so AkPIRG is going to try to keep them separate. In
1996 the vote was to put a limit on fundraising and donations.
He said his greater concern with SB 89 is the employee lobbyist.
A company with enough financial resources to pay an employee to
go to Juneau will have an advantage because smaller businesses
in the same field will not have the same access to their
legislators. If that lobbyist can fundraise and donate, that
company will get more of an ear from legislators.
SENATOR THERRIAULT noted that last week APOC said that four
hours is unreasonable and suggested 16 hours. In addition, he
told members that if a business hires an employee to engage in
lobbying, there is a good chance that employee will have to
register.
MR. CLEARY said his concern is that a company might hire two or
three lobbyists to split up the work so they could sidestep the
intent. He said he doesn't see any problem with the law right
now because it provides full disclosure of who is trying to
influence lawmakers. To raise the bar will not inspire more
small businesses to lobby. Their time is more valuable than the
$100 registration fee. This bill would open it up for medium and
larger businesses to be able to back up their lobbying with cash
and AkPIRG believes that is very harmful.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Cleary if AkPIRG wants to take away the
average person's ability to talk to their legislator and any
legislator they thought was friendly toward their cause.
MR. CLEARY said it depends. Talking to your legislator is a
civic duty, but if a person is talking to 60 legislators about a
business matter, that is lobbying. If a person is going to
lobby, that person should register and should not be able to
back up lobbying efforts with fundraising and donations.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Cleary if he limits his conversation on
topics of interest to AkPIRG to his own legislator.
MR. CLEARY said he does not.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if he is a registered lobbyist.
MR. CLEARY said he is not because he hasn't reached the number
of hours for which he would be required to register.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked what the number is.
MR. CLEARY said currently that number is four hours of any
direct lobbying.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if he limits his lobbying activities to
appearances before public sessions of the legislature.
MR. CLEARY said he does, but he has also spent about 30 minutes
making phone calls to legislators.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Cleary how close he is to spending four
hours.
MR. CLEARY said he would have to look at his records and respond
at a later date.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked who funds AkPIRG.
MR. CLEARY said they are funded from individual donations and
grant money from foundations.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Cleary if he is lobbying while giving
testimony.
MR. CLEARY said that is his understanding.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he wants to hear from anyone that wants to
talk to him on an issue. He doesn't believe he is just supposed
to represent one district. As a legislator, he should be able to
listen to people from all areas of the state. His intent is to
make sure that the real lobbyists are not let out of the net,
but that other people who want to influence legislators aren't
made into lawbreakers.
SENATOR FRENCH said he believes the current exemption on the
lobbying law excludes Mr. Cleary's activities here today.
CHAIR SEEKINS agreed with Senator French. He said the problem is
confusion and his intent is to not make criminals out of people.
He then called Graham Storey to testify.
MR. GRAHAM STOREY, Nome Chamber of Commerce, stated support for
SB 89 for several reasons. First, Alaska has the most
restrictive time requirements of any state. California uses one
third of the time spent in direct communications as its
yardstick. The Nome area has one Representative and one Senator
and, although they are very capable individuals, they do not sit
on every committee and do not have time to closely examine every
bill that might affect Nome. For example, the Senate Labor and
Commerce Committee is considering a bill that will have a
substantial impact on the Nome Chamber of Commerce, but the
Senator for Nome is not on that committee. Therefore, he would
like to be able to talk to the Labor and Commerce Committee
members without having to count that time toward making him a
professional lobbyist.
He advised that during testimony in the House it came out that
direct testimony before a committee is indeed a lobbying
activity and APOC was present and agreed that that is the case.
During a previous Senate hearing, it was conjectured that
testifying before a committee might not be lobbying. This alone
shows there is confusion at APOC about what is and is not
lobbying and needs to be clarified in law. Mr. Storey said the
opponents of this bill seem to be in favor of punishing the
smaller and medium sized businesses such as those that make up
the Nome Chamber of Commerce in favor of large businesses that
can afford to have professional lobbyists.
MS. TAMMY KEMPTON, the Juneau branch administrator of the Alaska
Public Offices Commission (APOC) and the regulator of lobbyists,
told members that the question of whether testifying before a
committee is considered to be lobbying depends. AS 24.45.161
says this chapter does not apply:
...to an individual who lobbies without payment of
compensation or other consideration ... and who limits
lobbying activities to appearances before public
sessions of the legislature, its committees or
subcommittees or to public hearings or other public
proceedings of state agencies.
Therefore, if a person is not getting paid to sit before a
committee and testify, that person is not subject to the law. If
that person is an employee who is testifying, once that person
hits four hours, that person needs to register.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if Mr. Cleary's time spent testifying before
the committee would count if he spent time lobbying his own
legislator.
MS. KEMPTON said it depends on whom else he talked to, if he
talks to his own legislator that is specifically exempt.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked where that is located in statute.
MS. KEMPTON said it is in the same section, paragraph (b). It
reads:
Nor does anything in this chapter prevent members of
the legislature from discussing with constituents the
advisability of passing legislation then pending
before or to be presented to the legislature.
That has always been interpreted to mean a constituent talking
to his or her legislator is not subject to the lobbying law.
SENATOR OGAN said the Key Campaign gives a presentation to the
Legislature every year. He suspects someone pays his or her
expenses, but he hasn't confirmed that. Other groups, such as
school districts, do the same thing and their students spend
more than four hours in the Capitol. He asked if they are
considered to be lobbyists if they get reimbursed for reasonable
travel and living expenses.
MS. KEMPTON said yes, someone whose travel and living expenses
are reimbursed is supposed to register as a representational
lobbyist. There is no fee and all of the other prohibitions,
such as contributions, don't apply.
SENATOR OGAN asked if APOC issues cards for representational
lobbyists.
MS. KEMPTON said APOC doesn't issue cards, but they do list
those names on their website. For the most part, APOC has never
gone out and tracked down representational lobbyists. Groups,
such as the Key Campaign, are not being compensated. They are
only reimbursed for expenses.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if a company employee that testifies
before a committee on legislation would have to count that time
as lobbying hours.
MS. KEMPTON replied the employee would have to count that time
and that's why APOC believes the four hour limit should be
raised to 16 hours.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if Mr. Cleary's testimony on behalf of
AkPIRG would count toward lobbying hours.
MS. KEMPTON said it should and Mr. Cleary called APOC with that
question.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if APOC still contends the word
"regular" should be struck from the statute.
MS. KEMPTON replied:
I have a copy of what the commission marked up and I
believe they provided you with a copy. I believe they
decided 'regular' should be left in the statute, but
that in the explanation where you have it divided out
between small [i] regular, small [ii] substantial,
that should be changed so that you're only defining -
and defining together - substantial or regular. The
reason for this, one thing, is because when you're
defining regular in that lower case i, it's only
relating it to legislative action but lobbying is also
executive branch. And, so, if you just do this, now
you have a regulation that's in effect that would
remain in effect. It would be four hours now for
administrative action and it would be 60 hours for
legislative action and I think that's probably a real
problem. So what the commissioner proposed is that
substantial and regular receive the same definition,
which would be 16 hours in a 30-day period for direct
communication with a public official or legislative
employee.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if APOC believes those two words need
further refinement in the statute and that the existing four
hour limitation in regulation is too restrictive.
MS. KEMPTON said APOC prefers 16 hours because they believe that
four hours is too restrictive. APOC would be happy to change the
number in regulation if that is easier than placing it in
statute.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if APOC would portray those changes as
gutting the law. He wanted to make it clear that a watchdog
group is aware of the issue. Although part can be changed
through regulation and the other through statutory changes,
making those changes will not strip the oversight of lobbyists.
MS. KEMPTON asked members to note the other change proposed by
APOC.
CHAIR SEEKINS interjected to say he had not yet distributed that
change to the members. He said he would copy the written
suggestions he received from Mr. Wood and distribute them to
members and then the committee would take them up as possible
amendments at the next meeting. SB 89 was held in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|