Legislature(2009 - 2010)
04/17/2010 05:22 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB230 | |
| SB238 | |
| SB236 | |
| SB24 | |
| SB25 | |
| SB284 | |
| SB237 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 284(FIN)
"An Act relating to state election campaigns, the
duties of the Alaska Public Offices Commission, the
reporting and disclosure of expenditures and
independent expenditures, the filing of reports, and
the identification of certain communications in state
election campaigns; prohibiting expenditures and
contributions by foreign nationals in state elections;
and providing for an effective date."
8:00:56 PM
Co-Chair Hawker MOVED to ADOPT HCS CSSB 284(FIN) (26-
LS1448\W, Kurtz/Bullard, 4/17/10) as a working document
before the committee.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
BEN MULLIGAN, STAFF, CO-CHAIR BILL STOLTZE, explained the
difference between the previous version (Judiciary
Committee, Version T) and the proposed CS. On page 8, lines
5 and 6, "and in a communication that includes an audio
component" is eliminated in the proposed CS. In addition,
the word "solely" is inserted after the words
"communication transmitted."
Mr. Mulligan detailed that the intention of the change is
to make sure that only the visual report is required for
television advertisements, not the audio.
Representative Gara clarified that the intention of the CS
is that the viewer would not hear the names of the top
contributors in a television ad. Mr. Mulligan replied that
the names would just be on the screen visually.
Representative Gara queried the word "solely." Mr. Mulligan
replied that the language was suggested by the bill's
drafter and would clarify that it applied to just radio or
other audio media.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, the work draft was ADOPTED.
8:04:12 PM
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH, SPONSOR, discussed a U.S. Supreme
Court decision earlier in the year that for the first time
in Alaskan history allows unlimited corporate and union
expenditures to be made for or against candidates or ballot
propositions. He emphasized that Alaska has never had such
a law and both Legislative Legal Services and the state
attorney general believed state statutes needed to be
updated because of the decision.
Senator French continued that the bill is broken down into
two major sections: disclosure and disclaimer. He detailed
that by "disclosure" he meant reporting to the Alaska
Public Offices Commission (APOC) the money raised from
contributors in order to make independent expenditures for
and against candidates and ballot initiatives. The
disclaimer provisions are intended to tell Alaskan voters
who is speaking to them in advertising. The sponsors wanted
to have as protective and firm a measure as possible to
protect Alaskan voters from new entities such as unions,
corporations, and other groups.
Senator French directed attention to Section 1 and
deletions that collapse lengthy definitions, such as for
"persons" (which in Alaskan statutes means everyone).
Senator French noted that the first significant section is
Section 4, which relates to disclosure requirements for the
reports that entities make to APOC. He emphasized that the
section referred to independent expenditures by advocacy
groups, not candidates, as clarified on page 3, line 10.
Every expenditure would have to be recorded so that voters
would know who was spending money either supporting or
opposing an issue. The measure sets a limit at $50 for
reporting the address, principal occupation, and employer
of the contributor, the same limit set for candidates.
Senator French relayed that the next significant provision
was in Section 8 on page 4, which would set up a separate
"political activities" account so that APOC can better
monitor the funds spent. Section 10 directs who can speak
to voters; the bill says the state would adopt the same
ideas as in federal law. For example, a foreign corporation
or individual cannot speak to Alaskan voters without a
local subsidiary. He noted the section was debated
extensively in the House Judiciary Committee.
8:09:43 PM
Senator French anticipated that the disclaimer provisions
in Sections 13 and 14 would cause debate. The disclaimer
provisions would let Alaskans know who funds communications
about issues. Section 13 says that the three largest
contributors have to be identified. Section 14 lays out the
mechanics of each medium, whether print, radio, or
television. He noted that there had been questions about
what to do when there are ten contributors who have given
the same amount (page 8, lines 11 through 16); the section
leaves it up to the entity making the ad.
Senator French turned to Section 18, which would keep
current law in place related to campaign misconduct.
Representative Gara queried independent expenditures.
Senator French responded that when candidates run
campaigns, they collect contributions from individuals or
political action committees (PACs) at a maximum of $500 per
calendar year. The money is collected into a campaign
account out of which expenditures are paid. The
contributions in the bill are separate, independent
contributions. Because they are independent of a candidate,
there is no limit on the amount of money that can be
contributed.
Senator French underlined the lack of a limit; an entity or
person could contribute $1 million or $10 million, whereas
the average House race might cost a candidate $100,000 and
the average Senate race might cost $200,000. With the new
legislation, much more money could be spent on candidates.
8:14:14 PM
Representative Gara emphasized that the U.S. Supreme Court
has determined that there is no longer a cap on independent
expenditures. He asked whether the legislation was intended
to regulate outside corporations and environmental groups.
Senator French responded in the affirmative. Because of the
newness of the landscape, no one knew who would contribute;
it could be ExxonMobile, Greenpeace, or Bill Gates, for
example.
Representative Gara questioned what the legislation would
do in a case such as an initiative related to aerial wolf
hunting. Senator French replied that due to the disclaimer
provisions, a television ad against aerial wolf hunting
would list the top three contributors to the organization
running the campaign.
Representative Gara queried the difference the CS would
make in the example. Senator French replied that in a
television advertisement, under the CS there would be no
spoken disclaimer whatsoever; it would be written only.
Vice-Chair Thomas asked whether the legislation addressed
"truth in advertising." Senator French indicated that
language had been put in mirroring current law on page 8,
lines 17 through 26. He noted that the difficulty is that
in elections, the U.S. Supreme Court long ago ruled that a
person can say and do almost anything. He pointed to line
23, "A person who makes a communication under the
subsection may not with actual malice include…a false
statement of material fact." Someone would have to be
extreme to break the rule.
8:17:34 PM
Vice-Chair Thomas asked whether, related to the wolf-
hunting example, an entity could buy an image of a hunter
skinning a wolf that they did not film. Senator Hollis
believed that could be allowed.
Representative Fairclough referred to page 7, line 19 and
20, disclosure related to influencing the outcome of a
ballot. She wondered whether the legislation spoke to
ballot measures. Senator French explained that the section
was a remnant of an old provision allowing small
expenditures (less than $500) made independent of any other
person and made only to influence the outcome of a ballot
proposition (page 3, lines 7) and is made for a billboard,
sign, or printed material only. He directed attention to
page 3, lines 10 through 13; every report must contain the
name of the candidate, the title of the ballot proposition,
or requests in support or opposition, all of which had to
be reported to APOC (if over the limit of $250 or $500
total expenditures).
8:19:32 PM
Representative Foster asked whether the top three
contributors had to be listed on a television ad. Senator
French replied that both the CS and the version of the bill
that had entered the committee stipulate that the
information must be listed in print at the bottom of the
ad. The CS further stipulates that the information does not
have to be audibly read out.
Representative Foster stated concerns about the ability of
elders to read the information because it was too small.
Senator French referred to page 7, lines 28 and 29,
stipulating that the information has to be "easily
discernable." He spoke to the issue of elders, or people
who might listen to the television rather than watch it, or
people who cannot see or read English well.
Representative Gara noted a previous concern about printing
zip codes and area codes. Senator French explained the
compromise found on the top of page 8: A print ad must
include the name as well as city and state of residence or
principal place of business of the top three contributors;
an audio disclaimer only needs the names.
8:22:28 PM
Co-Chair Hawker opened and closed public testimony.
Representative Doogan MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment
1:
DELETE: at page 8, line 5: after "communication
transmitted" delete "solely"
INSERT: at page 8 line 5, after "or other audio
media," insert: "and in a communication that includes
an audio component,"
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Doogan explained that the amendment would
reinstate language requiring audio as well as visual
disclaimer information on television ads. He used himself
as an example of someone who does not see small print on
television well. He believed that information about who is
trying to influence his vote was important. The amendment
would address people who do not read words on the screen
because they are distracted by other activities. He
stressed that viewers depend on audio as well as visual
cues. He believed the intent of the legislation was full
disclosure that included both.
Co-Chair Stoltze queried the sponsor's opinion of the
amendment.
8:27:30 PM
Representative Fairclough discussed vocalization in
television campaigns. Senator French acknowledged
discussion about the issue.
Representative Fairclough asked Representative Doogan for
more clarification about the amendment related to
disclosure. Representative Doogan believed that the
advertiser would lose the piece of time used to state who
paid for the ad. The point was letting people know who was
trying to influence them.
Representative Fairclough spoke in favor of the
vocalization but wanted to discern the advantages and
disadvantages to both the persons making the ads and those
hearing them. She asked whether addresses would be required
as well as the names. Senator French replied that only the
names would be required. She thought 15 seconds was a long
time for audio.
8:31:13 PM
Representative Gara directed attention to page 8. He read
examples of disclosures to demonstrate that the time needed
was short. He stressed the importance of disclosing the top
three contributors especially in ads that attack a
candidate or an issue. He argued that the core issue was
truth in disclosure and that the public has the right to
know exactly who is paying for the ad, not a "fake" name
such as "People for Jobs." He spoke in support of the
compromise version of the bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze acknowledged his lack of experience using
ads, particularly for television. He maintained that he was
in favor of full disclosure. He was opposed to an aspect of
the bill that he feared would make it too expensive for
some individuals or entities to buy ads.
8:37:48 PM
Representative Doogan thought the issue was a judgment
call. He stated his intent to get the information to
citizens about who is trying to influence them.
Representative Gara pointed out that no one could determine
how much money went into campaigns and issues because of
the U.S. Supreme Court ruling; however, hidden advertisers
could be prevented from hiding. He argued that without the
amendment, the information would only flash on the
television screen, which would aid those who were hiding.
He listed the people who would not catch the disclaimer. He
stressed the importance of full disclosure.
Representative Gara reviewed that adopting the CS would
result in the names being printed on the screen; adopting
the amendment would result in hearing who paid for the ads.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked how the disclaimer would be
displayed. Representative Gara answered that the disclaimer
would include the group's name and the names of the
contributors.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether the names would appear
without the amendment. Representative Gara answered that
the names would appear.
8:42:05 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Salmon, Doogan, Foster, Gara, Joule
OPPOSED: Thomas, Austerman, Fairclough, Stoltze, Hawker,
Kelly
The MOTION to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 FAILED (6/5).
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 2:
DELETE: at page 8, line 5: after "communication
transmitted" delete "solely"
INSERT: at page 8, line 5: after "or other audio
media," insert: "and in a communication that includes
an audio component,"
INSERT: at page 8, line 7: after "no contributors"
insert "or, for any of the three largest contributors
who have contributed less than $2,000:"
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Gara explained that the amendment was a
compromise; it was the same as Amendment 1 except that it
would only apply when there are very big contributors. The
amendment would require audible reading of the names of the
three biggest contributors to the extent that any of them
donated more than $2,000.
8:44:49 PM
Vice-Chair Thomas queried the amount. Senator French
responded that the contributions are not candidate
contributions but independent expenditures, for which there
is no limit.
Vice-Chair Thomas assumed only corporations would be listed
and not individuals. Senator French responded in the
affirmative.
Representative Gara clarified that the corporation's name
would be read if the donor is a corporation, person, or
group; the amendment would apply to any entity that donated
more than $2,000.
Co-Chair Stoltze requested further information.
Representative Gara directed attention to page 8, line 6 of
the bill, which says that the second statement is not
required if the person paying for the communications has no
contributors, or for any of the three largest contributors
who have contributed less than $2,000. The audio would have
to be included if any of the three largest contributors
contributed more than $2,000.
Co-Chair Stoltze reiterated earlier concerns regarding the
message. There was a discussion about an example.
Co-Chair Stoltze MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Salmon, Doogan, Foster, Gara, Joule
OPPOSED: Thomas, Austerman, Fairclough, Kelly, Hawker,
Stoltze
The MOTION to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2 FAILED (6/5).
8:50:33 PM AT EASE
8:51:15 PM RECONVENED
Co-Chair Hawker referred to two fiscal notes. The Division
of Elections anticipated no fiscal consequences and the
Offices Commission expected an additional position to
administrate the requirements of the statute and
contractual services costing $131,000 the first year and
$79,000 per year after that.
Representative Gara maintained that the provision not
adopted by the committee was the most important part of the
bill. He believed the rejected provision was about truth in
advertising and that the public deserves to know who is
trying to buy an election. He asserted that the public is
not going to know who contributed the money for the most
effective and negative ads and would be misled by group
names designed to change voting behavior.
Co-Chair Stoltze thought there were important provisions in
the bill.
Vice-Chair Thomas MOVED to report SB 284 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HCS CSSB 284(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and attached previously published fiscal
notes: FN1 (GOV), FN2 (ADM).
8:55:27 PM AT EASE
9:16:28 PM RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|