Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/04/2003 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 announced SB 89 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR OGAN motioned to adopt CSSB 89(JUD), 23LS0855\H as the
working document.
SENATOR ELLIS objected for purposes of discussion.
CHAIR SEEKINS explained it was an attempt to shorten the
definitions to make them clearer and differentiate between two
different types of lobbyists, A and B.
SENATOR OGAN asked who suggested 40 hours.
CHAIR SEEKINS said it was his suggestion and it was a
compromise.
SENATOR OGAN asked if there were any meetings on this
legislation outside of the committee with other folks interested
in the bill.
CHAIR SEEKINS replied yes, he met with the entire APOC
commission and other people expressed their opinions to him.
SENATOR ELLIS pointed out that you could conduct your business
in the Baranof Hotel and that wouldn't be considered "in the
building."
SENATOR OGAN asserted that he spent less than four hours at the
Baranof this year exclusive of attending some receptions.
SENATOR ELLIS said he wanted their comments on the record and
withdrew his objection. Committee substitute CSSB 89(JUD) was
adopted as the working document.
3:25 p.m.
MS. TAMMY KEMPTON, Juneau Branch Administrator, Alaska Public
Offices Commission, said she is also the regulator of lobbyists.
She said she would cover a brief history of the lobbying law in
Alaska, focusing on the issue of employees who lobby for their
employers and how that's been defined over the years. She also
wanted to share research on how other states address the
definition. She told members:
The first lobbying law was passed in 1913 and there
are two types of lobbyist, but neither type was called
a lobbyist. There were legislative counsel or
legislative agents and both the lobbyist and the
employer were required to register. That requirement
was expressed as 'whoever employs a person to act as
counsel or agent to promote, advocate or oppose the
passage or defeat by the legislature of any bill,
resolution or legislative measure or the executive
approval or veto thereof or to act in any manner as
legislative counsel or agent in connection with any
legislation.'
So it was a fairly cumbersome explanation. legislation
lobbyists appeared before committees to make arguments
and examine witnesses and they acted and advised on
specific legislation. Agent lobbyists were employed
for any purpose in connection with any legislation.
The registration fee in those days was $5 and that
money went to the District Historical Library Fund.
Public and municipal officials and employees were
exempt in 1913 as were people invited to appear before
the Legislature or its committees and those exemptions
are still in effect in the current law.
Also, in 1913 was a provision stating that the
lobbying law was not to be construed to prevent any
legislator from discussing with their constituents the
advisability of any legislation. At that time, the
provision was unique in the United States. As late as
1960, it still didn't appear in federal or in any
other state's lobbying law. This provision is retained
in our current law.
There were no definitions in 1913. Those didn't get
added until 1976. In 1949, they amended to qualify the
requirement of who had to register as a lobbyist and
what they added was whoever being a person being a
corporation 'engages or assigned any person already
regularly employed by said person, either with or
without additional compensation' and then they went on
and talked about retaining somebody that was an
outside person. That requirement - that any employee
who was assigned to lobby must register as a lobbyist,
continued until the Act was rewritten in 1976.
Also, in '49 they added provisions that no person can
lobby before registering and that compensation cannot
be dependent on passage or defeat of legislation.
Those last two provisions are also still in the law.
In 1976, the entire law was repealed and rewritten and
it was the 1976 law that added the qualifier,
substantial or regular, which [is] the subject of the
bill before us.
MS. KEMPTON said other states have a variety of requirements for
an employee whose job duties do not specifically include
lobbying to register as a lobbyist. In Hawaii, employees must
register if they lobby in excess of five hours in a month or
spend more than $750 lobbying in that month. In Connecticut, an
employee doesn't have to register if lobbying is limited to no
more than five hours. Wisconsin requires registration if an
employee lobbies for more than four days in a six-month period.
Washington State defines nine different types of lobbyists.
Employees are exempt if they limit their lobbying to no more
than four days or parts thereof during any three-month period
and their expenditures do not exceed $25.
In Oregon, lobbying activity is defined to specifically include
attempting to obtain the good will of legislative officials.
Employees are exempt if they lobby less than 24 hours and spend
less than $100 during any calendar quarter. In Arizona and
Idaho, employees have to register if they receive income or
reimbursement of $250 or more attributable to lobbying in a
calendar quarter. Idaho, Vermont and Virginia all require
employees to register if they receive or expend a yearly
aggregate of $500 in compensation or expenditures for lobbying.
Montana exempts employees whose reimbursable expenses do not
exceed $1,000 per year, although there is current legislation to
raise that limit to $2,500.
In West Virginia, the exemption is a little different. The
exemption is for employees who limit their activities to
attending group social functions and make no expenditures in
connection with lobbying.
Kentucky's laws are very different. Employees have to register
if they lobby on a substantial basis. Substantial basis is
defined as contacts which are intended to influence a decision
that involve one or more disbursements of state funds in an
amount of at least $5,000 a year.
MS. KEMPTON related that prior to introduction of SB 89, the
commission was looking at increasing the number of hours in the
regulatory definition of substantial or regular. They consider
16 hours in a 30-day period to be a reasonable definition. The
commission's other concern is with the definition of (B) that
says, "A person who represents one's self as engaging in the
influencing of legislative or administrative action as a
business occupation or profession." The concern is with the
definition of a lobbyist as "a person who represents one's
self." No professional lobbyist represents himself or herself as
a lobbyist.
CHAIR SEEKINS interrupted to say he thought she was
misinterpreting that definition. Anyone engaged in that
profession is advertising that he or she is a professional
lobbyist.
MS. KEMPTON replied that she understood that, but she was trying
to explain that most professional lobbyists do not call
themselves lobbyists; they call themselves consultants and they
call their business consulting. They do more for their clients
than just lobby.
CHAIR SEEKINS interrupted to ask if there was a definition in
regulation for influencing legislative or administrative action
that would clarify that.
MS. KEMPTON replied there is a definition that could possibly
clarify that. Because consultants do other things like
monitoring legislation, strategizing, etc., they would fall
under "A" unless "B" is also rewritten.
TAPE 03-16, SIDE B
MR. JOE MATHIS, Senior Operations Officer, NANA Corporation,
supported SB 89. He said he communicates with legislators to
ensure that his interests and the interests of Northwest Alaska
citizens and businesses are protected. He said he finds the
current APOC requirement to register as a lobbyist if you spend
four hours in a 30 day period communicating with a public
official to be unusually stringent and incorrect. In addition to
the time limit, APOC chose to broadly interpret lobbying
activities to include attending a reception attended by a
legislator.
He said that AS 24.25.171 says a person must register as a
lobbyist if a substantial or regular portion of activities for
which the person receives compensation is for the purpose of
influencing legislative or administrative actions. He said there
is no way four hours in a 30 day period could represent a
substantial or regular portion of the activities for which he is
paid and he's not a lobbyist. Many businesses in Alaska can't
afford to hire a full-time lobbyist, and even if his company
could, he said he is often the best person to tell how an action
might affect NANA Development Corporation.
MR. MATHIS said he doesn't believe it is appropriate public
policy to create onerous requirements that do nothing to protect
the public's interest, but he firmly believes that people who
derive their livelihood from lobbying activities should be
registered as lobbyists. He isn't sure the 80 hours in SB 89 is
the right amount of time and noted that he also supports HB 106
on the same issue.
MR. MATHIS stated he was going to testify next as the owner of
the Montana Creek Campground and a volunteer on the United Way
Board, the American Red Cross, Alaska Support Industry Alliance,
Arctic Power Board, Ocean View Community Council, Alaska
Campground Owners Association and a volunteer for the Prince
William Sound response team. All of those activities, with the
exception of the Montana Creek Campground, are volunteer
activities and take him to Juneau many times a year.
CHAIR SEEKINS called an at-ease from 2:35 - 2:37 p.m. He came
back on the record and announced that APOC said four hours is
too restrictive. He said this kind of volunteer activity, where
his company is paying him as part of the community service and
gets some benefit, is in a gray area. Strict interpretation of
the regulations could count that time toward the four hours,
which is why they are trying to expand the definition.
MR. DICK CATTANACH, Executive Director, Associated General
Contractors of Alaska (AGC), said one of the cornerstones of
democracy is citizen participation and each year AGC flies
members to Juneau to meet with legislators. It is a two-day
event with a reception in the evening and there is face-to-face
contact with legislators for 10 - 12 hours. That would make all
the people that traveled to Juneau this year in violation of the
law. He is certain it is not the intent to make Alaskan citizens
into criminals.
CHAIR SEEKINS said they are currently considering a definition
of 40 hours in any calendar month. He asked if Mr. Cattanach if
he thought that was a reasonable number.
MR. CATTANACH replied it is acceptable 90% of the time, but
there might be someone who comes down from AGC in early February
and then comes down again with the Chamber in mid-February and,
all of a sudden, they're bumping up against that limit. He
thought the original bill is aimed at someone who is promoting
certain legislation. He opined there may be problems with a
strict interpretation of 40 hours.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if language that says face-to-face
representation would make it clearer.
MR. CATTANACH said that would be much better. He noted, "I
wouldn't have any trouble with the 20 hours at that point."
MS. BROOKE MILES, Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission,
said she was available to answer questions.
SENATOR ELLIS noted that a company named Agrium wanted the state
to contribute $11 million to its coffers to support its business
this year. He asked whether Agrium executives registered as
lobbyists when they sought support for legislation by
Representative Chenault or did they come with charitable
organizations to talk about charities and their business.
MS. MILES deferred to Ms. Kempton who was handling the
registrations and had the most up-to-date information.
SENATOR OGAN advised that Agrium's registered lobbyist, a hired
consulting firm, visited him and he spent a few minutes with one
of the executives.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if he knew whether the executives had
registered.
MS. KEMPTON responded that Lisa Parker, Executive Director for
Agrium, registers every year and is usually Agrium's sole
lobbyist, but this year the company also hired Patten Boggs.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked what kind of a report a lobbyist would have
to provide if one spoke to him.
MS. KEMPTON replied lobbyists don't have to do that. His staff
might keep records, but they are not required to report
meetings.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if it is true that there is no requirement
for him as a legislator or a lobbyist to report to anyone who he
talks to about anything.
MS. KEMPTON replied there is no requirement for him to report
his meetings to APOC.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked how the law serves notice to the public that
Agrium is trying to get an $11 million contract.
MS. KEMPTON explained that the employer reports any additional
monies spent on lobbying activities on the employer report that
is not reported on the registered lobbyist report on schedule B.
If the employer sent other executives to the Legislature, the
employer would have to report when they came, who came, who they
met with and what it cost.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if it is true that the lobbyist is not
required to report that.
MS. KEMPTON replied that is true and it's also true on the
federal level.
CHAIR SEEKINS said the best way to notify people who legislators
talked to is to put it on their websites.
MS. KEMPTON agreed.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if that would be better than what is done
now.
MS. KEMPTON replied it depends on what you think the public
wants to know. In 1976, the Legislature felt the public wanted
to know how much is spent on lobbying and on which subjects,
including bill numbers.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked what if a lobbyist is trying to get a bill
introduced.
MS. KEMPTON explained that would fall under the broad subject
category. Federal law does not require a lobbyist to report who
he met with either.
SENATOR THERRIAULT commented that the $100 fee and the paperwork
are pretty minimal, but he questioned the real purpose of the
other restrictions on the person's activities. If the public has
full disclosure of the money a person gave to someone's
campaign, it's already capped at between $100-$500 and
disclosed. For instance, a volunteer from United Way has a
limited ability to participate in the political process just
like every other Alaskan does. That is more onerous than the
$100 to him.
SENATOR ELLIS said that the $100-$500 contribution isn't the big
fish; it's that lobbyists can't hold fundraisers for candidates.
SENATOR THERRIAULT added that they can't give a contribution of
any size.
CHAIR SEEKINS noted that the rest of the lobbyist's family could
give a fundraiser or contribute.
MS. KEMPTON commented that the prohibition on lobbyists giving
to candidates outside of their district was part of the
citizen's initiative in 1974 that rewrote the campaign
disclosure. It was not part of the lobbying law.
MS. PAM LABOLLE, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce,
said she supports CSSB 89(JUD) because it creates a more
reasonable threshold for establishing who is a professional
lobbyist and it clarifies the definition of "communicate
directly."
2:55 p.m.
CHAIR SEEKINS said there are some suggestions to further clarify
"communicate directly," "influencing legislative or
administrative action" and what a lobbyist means.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked for APOC's position on a person being
able to participate in campaigns.
MS. MILES responded that was discussed at the commission's
meeting in Juneau last week. All five commission members
approved removing from the campaign disclosure law in AS 15.13,
the prohibition of a lobbyist giving a lawful contribution to
any candidate of her or his choice
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if they would be changing the law from
a Cadillac to a Chevrolet if they adopted that change.
MS. MILES said the Commissioner doesn't believe so.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Ms. Miles to forward the Commission's
recommendations to the committee and put the bill aside for
future action.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|