Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 120
04/13/2005 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB183 | |
| HB260 | |
| HB53 | |
| HB257 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 257 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 183 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 260 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 53 | ||
HB 183 - CAMPAIGN FINANCE: SHARED EXPENSES 1:12:47 PM CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 183, "An Act relating to the use of campaign contributions for shared campaign activity expenses and to reimbursement of those expenses." [Before the committee was CSHB 183(STA).] REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, relayed that while Alaska has some of the strongest campaign finance laws in the nation, there is an ambiguity regarding, for example, two candidates participating in the same activity, such as a fundraiser, in which one candidate writes the check for the caterer and the other candidate reimburses him/her. This legislation inserts language specifying that one candidate may reimburse another candidate for shared campaign expenses, as long as the reimbursement occurs within three working days after the original expense is paid. He highlighted that the main intent is to shift the burden for compliance with campaign laws from vendors to candidates. CHAIR McGUIRE inquired as to the rationale for the three-day requirement. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER relayed that he wanted there to be a tight window, and after extensive discussion in the House State Affairs Standing Committee, reimbursement within three working days was deemed a reasonable length of time. 1:15:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that he would like to include language in HB 183 to allow one [candidate] to provide another [candidate] with his/her fundraising list. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER indicated that his only reservation with regard to adding such language is that he is not familiar with [current law] on that issue. REPRESENTATIVE GARA suggested that the committee could either address this now with a conceptual amendment or [a committee substitute] could be drafted before the legislation gets to the House floor. CHAIR McGUIRE suggested instead that the committee move HB 183 out of committee today and then draft appropriate language with help from the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC). She said that she would agree to help obtain support for [Representative Gara's] suggested change. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said he would be willing to co-sponsor [such an amendment] on the House floor or in the House Rules Standing Committee. 1:18:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that the requirement to repay a candidate within three working days could be too short for candidates from the Bush who have a fundraiser in Anchorage. Therefore, he asked whether the sponsor would view changing that requirement to a week as a friendly amendment. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER indicated his preference for having the shortest, tightest time period possible. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated the potential problems those in the Bush could face with the three-day requirement. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, to delete "three working days" from page 2, line 18, and insert "five working days". There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 1:20:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER, in response to comments, specified that the intent of HB 183 is to merely cleanup areas of the campaign finance laws that are universally supported by both Republicans and Democrats. 1:22:17 PM BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), Department of Administration (DOA), informed the committee that the APOC has reviewed HB 183 and didn't believe there would [be an issue] with the repayment happening within three working days. However, changing it to five working days or one working day might be cause concern because of the possibility of the well-funded candidate virtually supporting the non-funded [candidate] pending the outcome of the fundraising event. Furthermore, there may be some confusion if the repayment crosses reporting periods. Ms. Miles opined that the APOC would favor the shorter time period. However, if the committee believes additional time is necessary, the APOC will administer whatever the law specifies. MS. MILES, in response to earlier comments, noted that the law does permit candidates to make contributions to the party for events. With regard to Representative Gara's request regarding the sharing of fundraising lists, Ms. Miles pointed out that there is some value to those lists, but characterized that value as de minimis. Ms. Miles concluded by saying that these aforementioned issues are matters of policy and thus the APOC will support whatever laws the legislature. 1:25:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he doesn't see that there would be a problem changing the repayment time period from three days to five days. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM, noting Ms. Miles's comments on the issue, moved that the committee rescind its action in adopting Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered changing the three-day requirement to a five-day requirement within a reporting period. He relayed his understanding that Ms. Miles's concern was in regard to the disclosures being reported within the same [reporting] period. MS. MILES said such [language] would completely address her concern. CHAIR McGUIRE inquired as to how the individual [candidate] would know [when a reporting period change]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that that information would be shared between candidates who know their reporting periods. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER opined that there is little to no difference between three days overlapping the end of a reporting period and five days overlapping the end of a reporting period. He relayed his understanding that the current statute is intended to prevent one candidate from making a loan to another, and so if statute authorizes the reimbursement of a shared campaign expense, the [date] specified on the campaign disclosure form would apply. 1:27:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that a candidate who has been reimbursed would show receipt of the check, otherwise it would appear to be a loan and need to be reported. REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that technically, if a candidate receives something and pays for it three days later, the candidate's books would have to refer to those [funds] as a loan or a contribution during that period. Therefore, he suggested that the legislation specify that as long as [the candidate] pays for [the shared expenses] within [a certain period of] days, then it doesn't have to be reported as something else in the meantime. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER specified that the trigger mechanism is when one candidate writes a check and gives cash [to another candidate]. He opined that [Representative Gara's suggestion] adds an unnecessary level of complication. Until a check is actually written, both candidates could decide to split the payment. CHAIR McGUIRE clarified that there is no intention for there to be any additional reporting than there [currently is]. She indicated her agreement that the three-day requirement may be difficult for those in the Bush and thus the change to a five- day requirement makes sense. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM withdrew her motion. MS. MILES, in response to a question, reiterated that if the [compensation is received] during the same reporting period, it would be fine; however, if one candidate owes another for costs paid in advance of a shared fundraising event and the reporting period is closed, then the other candidate would need to show it as a debt. CHAIR McGUIRE surmised that what Ms. Miles is describing is no different than if the candidate owed it to the vendor and there were no shared expenses. MS. MILES agreed. 1:31:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report CSHB 183(STA), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 183(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|