Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/11/2001 08:52 AM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 103(FIN)
"An Act relating to election campaigns and legislative
ethics."
Mr. Tibbles noted that members were provided with a proposed
committee substitute, work draft 22-LS0148\H. He noted that
three sections were modified or deleted by the proposed
committee substitute. He discussed the changes.
Section 1 of the Judiciary version was deleted. Section 1
would have required the Commission to develop a single form
for financial disclosure statements. The requirement was
removed because the statute referenced two separate
disclosure laws: one applied to the legislature and one
applied to all public officials. The laws are distinct and
different. The issue is still being reviewed.
Section 5 was also deleted. Section 5 allowed the use of
office account funds to influence the outcome of an election
concerning a ballot proposition if the use was permitted
under the ethics law. Mr. Tibbles noted that testimony by
Brook Miles, Executive Director, Alaska Public Officers
Commission indicated that deletion of the section would not
prevent the practice. The intent is to clarify that public
money could not be used other than to perform the usual and
customary duties of one's job. Members can support of oppose
ballot propositions and send mailings. Members could not
operate a campaign or influence a campaign out of their
office.
Section 6, subsection 4(a)(ii): use by a political party was
deleted. Mr. Tibbles explained that the provision was
confusing. Under current law, a union or corporation could
mail to their shareholders or members and families only if
it is a regular communication, such as a newsletter. Special
bulletins would not be allowed. It would be limited to $500
dollars.
Representative Croft agreed with the elimination of
subsection 4(a)(ii) and pointed out that there is a
constitutional right to associate with people that want to
form a group to communicate on issues.
Representative John Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1:
A campaign that receives $500, or goods or services of
a value of $500, may file a contributor's statement as
required under this section on behalf of the
contributor.
Co-Chair Mulder noted that the amendment had been discussed
in the previous meeting. The amendment would allow the 15.5
reports to be filed by the campaign with the Alaska Public
Officers Commission.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative John Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2:
Section 19.25.105 is amended by adding:
(a) (7) Political campaign signs no larger than 4 feet
by 8 feet may be within the right of way within 45 days
of an election in which a candidate or ballot issue or
constitutional amendment is to be decided, and those
signs must removed within 10 days after that election.
Section 19.25.150 is amended by adding:
A sign in violation of AS 95.25.105 (a) (7) may be
removed immediately by the department, and returned to
the candidate or campaign for upon receipt of a $100
handling fee per sign.
Representative John Davies explained that the amendment
would address the use of political campaign signs. He
observed that there is confusion regarding the law. The
amendment would allow the use of signs within 45 days of an
election. Signs would have to be removed within 10 days
after an election. The amendment would also clarify the
penalty. The department would be able to immediately remove
signs that are in violation of the law. Signs would be
returned to the campaign with a $100 handling fee. He noted
that his intent is to clarify the law and even the playing
field.
Representative Hudson expressed support for the amendment.
He noted that the department must currently give a 30-day
notice before signs can be removed. He maintained that there
are violations under the current law. He noted that signs
could not be placed near election sites and would not affect
billboard laws. The amendment would legalize the status quo.
Co-Chair Mulder spoke in support of the amendment. He
observed that current law has been inconsistently applied
from location to location and campaign to campaign.
In response to a question by Representative Whitaker,
Representative John Davies explained that the state version
of the 1966 federal act was adopted by initiative. State law
disallows billboards along state maintained roads. The
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities has made
a distinction between rural roads. During the last election,
the Northern Region of the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities enforced the law on all state maintained
road in Fairbanks. He observed that there was a lot of
confusion regarding the use of signs. The department's
interpretation was viewed as onerous, although it was the
correct interpretation of the law. The amendment would
clarify the law and draw a bright line as to the use of
campaign signs.
Representative Lancaster questioned if the amendment would
be self-serving.
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT expressed concern that a specific
allowance would be carved out. He noted that the Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities is protective of the
right away. He added that signs are not allowed if they are
visible from a state maintained road on private property. He
expressed concern that the amendment would set the
Legislature up for criticism.
Representative John Davies responded that the exemption
would be handled in the same way as other exemptions. He
stressed that a large number of people are putting up signs.
The amendment would specify what is allowed and what is not.
He acknowledged that the 30-day rule makes sense for most
business uses, but argued that the 30-day rule invites
people to place signs 29 days before the election in
violation of the law. The amendment would clarify the rules.
Representative Croft acknowledged that it creates an
exception that other businesses won't have but stressed that
it would confirm the current practice. He pointed out that
there would not be further opportunity to debate the issue,
since it is the final committee assignment on a senate bill.
He acknowledged the need to review the issue, but suggested
that it should be taken up in other legislation.
Representative Whitaker spoke against the amendment. He
observed that the public approved of the limitations placed
on the signs in the Northern Region.
Representative Harris questioned if there is any provision
to allow the department to designate areas allowing signs.
Senator Therriault clarified that the department does not
allow signs in the road right-of-way. He noted that the bill
was scheduled for floor action that day and that there would
be little time to review the amendment.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Davies, Hudson, Mulder
OPPOSED: Croft, Harris, Lancaster, Whitaker, Williams
Representatives Foster, Moses and Bunde were absent from the
meeting.
In response to a question by Senator Therriault, Co-Chair
Mulder restated the intent of Amendment 1. He emphasized the
intent of diminishing the "hassle factor" for individual
donors.
Senator Therriault reviewed statute requirements for
contributions. He noted that the contributor must state that
they are not prohibited by law from making the contribution.
He questioned if a campaign could fill out a form for the
candidate. He questioned if the language had been reviewed
by the Department of Law.
Representative John Davies pointed out that the amendment is
permissive and states that they "may". He stressed that
regulation would allow the intent to fit with the statute.
Senator Therriault did not have problems with the intent,
but expressed concern that he was not sure how the drafter
would interpret the language.
Co-Chair Mulder observed that the Division of Legal Services
was reviewing the amendment. He noted that it was not his
intent to diminish or threaten the bill. He noted that if
the result is adversarial that the amendment could be
withdrawn.
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to report HCS SB 103 (FIN) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note.
HCS SB 103 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a previous published fiscal
impact note (#2) by the Department of Administration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|