Legislature(2009 - 2010)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/12/2010 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB92 | |
| SB239 | |
| SB284 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 239 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 284 | ||
SB 284-CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES
2:29:45 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 284 and said that
today the committee would work on amendments. He noted that Mr.
Ptacin from the Department of Law (DOL), Mr. Bullard from
Legislative Legal and Research, and Ms. Hill from the Alaska
Public Offices Commission (APOC), were on line to explain
aspects of the amendments.
2:31:02 PM
CHAIR FRENCH moved Amendment 1, labeled 26-LS1448\A.3, and
objected for discussion purposes.
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR FRENCH
TO: SB 284
Page 2, line 28:
Following "an":
Insert "independent"
Following "expenditures":
Insert "made and contributions received"
CHAIR FRENCH said this is to make it clear that the report has
to include the money you spend and the money you have taken in.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said perhaps he's missing a nuance in the
statute, but it would seem that if an expenditure is being made,
regardless of whether it's independent, it would require
reporting.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Bullard to summarize the contents of the
memorandum he sent regarding this amendment
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, explained that right now AS 15.13.040(d) and (e) that
address expenditures both in the bill and also in current law
are applied under APOC regulations to AAC 50.336 only to
independent expenditures. Responding to Senator Wielechowski's
comment, he said that expenditures for candidates, nongroup
entities, and groups have to be reported under AS 15.13.110 so
it's been the practice of APOC to require only independent
expenditure reports under these statutory subsections.
CHAIR FRENCH recapped that in Section 3, AS 15.13.040(d) is
being amended and it is a reporting requirement that applies
only to independent expenditures.
MR. BULLARD said yes and the other line of the amendment is to
better describe what that section is doing.
CHAIR FRENCH withdrew his objection to Amendment 1 and asked if
there was further objection.
SENATOR COGHILL objected for further discussion. He related that
he agrees with the amendment, but he would like the committee to
consider an amendment he prepared that includes the contents of
Amendment 1 and also conforming changes on page 6, lines 13-15.
CHAIR FRENCH suggested that the committee finish with Amendment
1 and then address his proposal as Amendment 2.
SENATOR COGHILL agreed and removed his objection to Amendment 1.
CHAIR FRENCH found no further objection and announced that
Amendment 1 is adopted.
2:36:05 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved Amendment 2. He explained that it consists
of lines 4-11 of amendment 26-LS1448\A.7 to SB 284. Lines 1-3
were adopted as Amendment 1.
AMENDMENT 2
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR COGHILL
TO: SB 284
Page 6, line 13, following "An":
Insert "independent"
Page 6, line 14, following "an":
Insert "independent"
Page 6, line 15, following the first occurrence of
"an":
Insert "independent"
CHAIR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked Mr. Bullard if there was a reason
that Amendment 1 didn't insert the word "independent" on page 6,
lines 13-15 as Amendment 2 did.
MR. BULLARD replied the requests for the amendments were
slightly different. The request that resulted in the drafting of
26-LS1448\A.7 was only to insert the "independent" language.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if Amendment 2 tracks Amendment 1.
MR. BULLARD said he would describe the changes as an aid to the
reader rather than substantive legal changes. The result of
Amendment 1 is that the person turning to 15.13.110(g) now will
be reminded that the report is the independent expenditure
report.
CHAIR FRENCH removed his objection and announced that without
further objection, Amendment 2 is adopted.
2:39:43 PM
CHAIR FRENCH moved Amendment 3, labeled 26-LS1448\A.4, and
objected for discussion purposes. He explained that the idea
behind the amendment was to make certain that people (meaning
individuals, nongroups, groups, corporations, and unions making
independent expenditures) create a separate bank account to
receive money for funds that will be expended in these efforts.
It's easier for everyone to know that a separate account is
necessary so that no one is tempted to draw from a general
treasury. It also makes it easier for APOC and others to look at
the records of the person making the expenditures in the event
of an alleged violation.
AMENDMENT 3
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR FRENCH
TO: SB 284
Page 4, following line 4:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 7. AS 15.13 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 15.13.052. Independent expenditures;
political activities accounts. (a) Before making
an independent expenditure in support of or in
opposition to a candidate or before making an
independent expenditure in support of or in
opposition to a ballot proposition or question,
each person other than an individual, candidate,
or nongroup entity with an annual operating
budget of $250 or less, shall establish a
political activities account. The political
activities account may be a separate account in
the person's general treasury. The political
activities account must be administered using
generally accepted accounting principles. All
funds used by the person to make independent
expenditures must be drawn from the person's
political activities account.
(b) Records necessary to substantiate the
requirements of (a) of this section must be made
available for inspection by the commission.
(c) Each person who has established a
political activities account under this section
shall preserve all records necessary to
substantiate the person's compliance with the
requirements of this section for each of the six
preceding years."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Bullard to convey the suggestions that he
attached to Amendment 3.
MR. BULLARD directed attention to the language in Section 4 on
page 3 that says that the person making the independent
expenditure has to include information about the contributions
they have received in every independent expenditure report. The
memo suggests that this section might be more at home in the new
bill section proposed in Amendment 3. Although this is neither
legally nor constitutionally required, it may be a more
practical and workable solution for both APOC and for those
people making independent expenditures, he said.
2:42:52 PM
CHAIR FRENCH summarized that he is suggesting that the
independent expenditure report, referenced in Section 4, should
be incorporated into the account of monies contributed to and
spent from the political activities accounts.
MR. BULLARD said that's right; they would merely have the duty
to report when funds were transferred into the account or when
funds were leaving the account. They wouldn't have to separately
account for contributors on a report of an expenditure. He said
he isn't sure how it would work in practice.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Holly Hill if she had followed the discussion
regarding Amendment 3 and the way it would integrate with the
current reporting requirements as envisioned by the bill.
HOLLY HILL, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission
(APOC), Department of Administration, said she didn't have a
copy of the amendments so she would defer to Mr. Ptacin.
2:44:39 PM
JOHN PTACIN, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Department of Law (DOL), said it doesn't seem that Mr. Bullard
is suggesting that a corporation cannot make an expenditure
using its own coffers. Rather, he's suggesting that to keep the
reporting as clean as possible, that they create another account
for all the contributions come in, including contributions from
a corporation or labor union general treasury.
CHAIR FRENCH agreed that it isn't restricting where the money
comes from; it's setting up one location that APOC or others can
go to find out the amount of money a particular entity collected
and how they spend it.
MR. PTACIN said he doesn't see an issue with the suggestion. Any
law that burdens political speech in this area is subject to
strict scrutiny so there would need to be a compelling
government interest and narrow tailoring. This appears on its
face to be narrowly tailored to a government interest as long as
there isn't some outright restriction that the corporation can't
spend its money and be the speaker.
2:46:18 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said he wanted give Ms. Hill an opportunity to
consider whether or not there's a way to integrate Section 4 and
the new Section 7 proposed in Amendment 3. He suggested the
committee address Amendment 3 and at some later time address Mr.
Bullock's suggestion.
He asked if there's something in law that says that candidates
have to establish political activities accounts or if it's just
a really good idea that candidates follow.
MS. HILL said she can't cite the statute or regulation, but APOC
does advise candidates to keep separate campaign accounts.
SENATOR COGHILL added that there is a requirement for candidates
to have an account that registers the name of the campaign and
the treasury. The statute or regulation specifies what has to be
included in the account name and the particular APOC reporting
forms that are used.
2:48:12 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI referenced the language on lines 7 and 8 of
Amendment 3 and questioned whether the intent was to say "$250
or more" rather than "$250 or less," which is the language in
the amendment.
MR. BULLARD said this requirement applies to all persons other
than an individual, a candidate, or a nongroup entity with an
annual operating budget of $250 or less.
CHAIR FRENCH summarized that if you're an individual, candidate,
or nongroup entity with an annual operating budget of $250 or
less, you are not captured under the requirement to establish a
political activities account.
MR. BULLARD said that's correct.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI commented that the language is awkward.
CHAIR FRENCH removed his objection and announced that without
further objection, Amendment 3 is adopted. He noted that this
section could see further change when Ms. Hill sees how it
interacts with Section 4 or if a committee member finds a better
way to express to whom this does and does not apply.
2:50:07 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said Amendment 4 and Amendment 5 are both about
disclaimers. This is putting words in the advertisement that
helps viewers, readers, or listeners understand who is speaking
with regard to elections.
CHAIR FRENCH moved Amendment 4, labeled 26-LS1448\A.6, and
objected for discussion purposes.
AMENDMENT 4
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR FRENCH
TO: SB 284
Page 5, line 27, following "the":
Insert "name and city and state of residence or
principal place of business, as applicable, of each of the"
Page 5, line 29, following "communication":
Delete ", with the words "top five contributors""
Page 6, following line 11:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 12. AS 15.13.090 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(c) To satisfy the requirements of
(a)(2)(C) of this section and, if applicable, (a)(2)(D)
of this section, the following statement or statements
must be read, in a manner that is easily heard, or
placed in the communication so as to be easily
discernable, or, in a communication that is transmitted
by a method that includes both audio and video
components, be read in a manner that is easily heard
and placed in the communication so as to be easily
discernable:
This communication was paid for by
(person's name and city and state of
principal place of business).
The top contributors of (person's name)
are (the name and city and state of
residence or principal place of business, as
applicable, of the largest contributors to
the person under AS 15.13.090(a)(2)(D))."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what AS 15.13.040(e)(5) says.
2:53:15 PM
MR. BULLARD replied it's a reference to the contributors in
Section 4 on page 3, paragraph (5).
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if this would apply to a company like
Exxon or if it's designed for groups.
MR. BULLARD directed attention to the words "if any" on page 5,
line 28, and explained that the concern about contributors is
more about trade organizations and entities where a number of
persons have come together to engage in some advocacy and less
about a major corporation like Exxon.
SENATOR COGHILL said his concern with requiring information
about the five largest contributors is that it could create a
situation where there's more information than people are willing
to handle and the intended impact might be diminished. He
suggested instead that the principal officers identify
themselves and provide information about the communication
because this looks like it will take a full 30 seconds to
communicate this information. Let me know if I'm wrong on that,
he said.
2:56:35 PM
CHAIR FRENCH responded there may be a need to run a test with a
stopwatch to see what it'll take to get this information into a
30 second advertisement.
SENATOR COGHILL clarified that he supports full disclosure, but
this is reportable information that people will get in other
venues. It may not be well received in this venue because it'll
be ignored, he added.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Bullard how far you can go with respect
to requiring an audible disclosure in a 30 second television
advertisement without infringing on a corporation's or union's
or candidate's First Amendment rights.
MR. BULLARD replied disclosure would be less burdensome than
either a total prohibition or a limitation, but he can't say
with any certainty where the line is for too much disclosure in
this context.
2:59:13 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated that he absolutely believes that it
is a compelling state interest to require as much disclosure as
possible and he supports listing at least the top five
contributors and their location. "I'm inclined to err on the
side of more disclosure because I think that big money in
elections is dangerous to representative democracy." I support
your amendment, he concluded.
CHAIR FRENCH thanked him for his comments and added that he
wouldn't be surprised to see his words in a brief some day.
MR. PTACIN said he will echo that thought and he applauds the
conversation. The discussion about compelling government
interest certainly helps establish a record for future
litigation. We are talking about free speech and these laws are
subject to challenge, he said.
CHAIR FRENCH said he will associate himself with Senator
Wielechowski's comments because he thinks he's right. The
federal government has experience in this area, but the State of
Alaska has never allowed corporations or unions to participate
directly in campaigns for or against candidates. Because this is
a whole new landscape, it's a good idea to start with
restrictions that are as tight as possible. We can deal with it
if a court later orders the state to loosen the restrictions, he
said.
CHAIR FRENCH pointed out that in this state three companies
account for 90 percent of the state's revenue so they are going
to have a profound interest in participating directly in
elections for the very understandable reason of relieving their
tax burden. For these reasons it's very important to have strong
laws in place to let people know who is speaking to them, he
said.
3:01:59 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said he too is interested in full disclosure and
he understands the need for tight restrictions. But if we're
going to ask for disclosures on each advertisement then we
should also ask candidates to disclose their top five
contributors on a campaign advertisement, he said. I don't think
we want to do that but there needs to be equity, and if we're
asking them to speak not with a single voice but a combined
voice of the top five contributors we might actually be putting
more burden on that individual voice than is necessary.
CHAIR FRENCH said it's a good point, but very different rules
apply to candidates as opposed to corporations making
independent expenditures. Most candidates will have 20-30
contributors at the maximum $500 per calendar year level so
you'd have to figure out a way to select the top three or top
five. "I'll leave that to you if you want to craft an amendment
to work that out," he said.
3:03:53 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI opined that this doesn't stop any
individual corporation or union from saying anything. This
addresses laundering and unions or corporations who want to hide
behind another group. They have a legal right to do that, but
this legislation says that the public has a right to know who is
behind that group. Hiding behind groups is my big concern and
that's what this is aimed to stop, he said. There is absolutely
a compelling state interest in defining the top contributors so
we can curtail trying to skirt disclosure, he said.
SENATOR COGHILL said it's a good debate to have but he continues
to believe that the principals should speak for a corporation
rather than the top five contributors.
CHAIR FRENCH removed his objection to Amendment 4 and asked if
there was further objection.
SENATOR COGHILL objected. "I really feel very strongly that we
need to go in a different direction," he said.
A roll call vote was taken. Amendment 4 was adopted on a 3:1
vote with Senators Wielechowski, McGuire, and French voting yea
and Senator Coghill voting nay.
CHAIR FRENCH said the legislation in the House identifies the
top three contributors but not their physical address so it's
likely that this section will receive further attention.
SENATOR COGHILL said he wouldn't offer Amendment 5, labeled 26-
LS1448\A.9, because it's the argument he used to try to defeat
Amendment 4.
3:08:15 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved Amendment 6, labeled 26-LS1448\A.8.
AMENDMENT 6
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR COGHILL
TO: SB 284
Page 4, lines 5 - 14:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 7. AS 15.13.067 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.13.067. Who may make expenditures. Only the
following may make an expenditure that is not an
independent expenditure in an election for candidates for
elective office:
(1) the candidate;
(2) an individual;
(3) a group that has registered under AS 15.13.050; and
(4) a nongroup entity that has registered under
AS 15.13.050."
Page 5, lines 3 - 11:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
3:09:03 PM
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff to Senator Coghill, explained that
Amendment 6 rewrites Section 7 to clarify that the Alaska State
Legislature is only changing statutes to deal with the Citizens
United decision, which deals with corporations and independent
expenditures. The language is a better choice with respect to
preserving the intent of the decision, she said.
CHAIR FRENCH summarized that Section 7 was rewritten in a
positive rather than negative manner and the material on page 5,
lines 3-11, was deleted in the belief that it would be captured
in the rewritten section.
MS. MOSS agreed. She added that the original draft deleted
material in Section 7 and reinserted it in Section 10.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Bullard to speak to the amendment.
MR. BULLARD said that in the past corporations and unions were
not allowed to make expenditures on behalf of candidates and all
this bill does is allow them to make independent expenditures.
My concern is that I don't know if this change is significant,
but it has the potential to be so in the future depending on
which direction the statutes go, he said.
3:12:40 PM
CHAIR FRENCH noted, with some surprise, that the AS 15.13.050
registration requirements are still in the bill on lines 9 and
10 of the amendment.
CHAIR FRENCH removed his objection to Amendment 6. Finding no
further objection, he announced that Amendment 6 is adopted.
He asked the members to read Mr. Ptacin's letter dated 3/9/10
before the next hearing because the concerns he articulated may
elicit additional amendments.
CHAIR FRENCH held SB 284 in committee for further work.
3:13:47 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair French adjourned the meeting at 3:13 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|