Legislature(1999 - 2000)

04/26/2000 01:00 PM House JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 179 - APOC REPEAL: CAMPAIGN/DISCLOSURE/LOBBYIST                                                                              
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the committee would take up SPONSOR                                                                
SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 179, "An Act eliminating the Alaska                                                               
Public Offices Commission and all campaign contribution and                                                                     
expenditure limits; transferring the administration of lobbying,                                                                
conflict of interest, and financial disclosure statutes from the                                                                
Alaska Public Offices Commission to the division of elections;                                                                  
relating to reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures;                                                               
defining 'full disclosure,' 'purposely,' 'recklessly,' and                                                                      
'resident'; amending the definition of 'contribution,' 'group,' and                                                             
'political party'; changing the residency requirements for                                                                      
candidates for public offices; and providing for criminal penalties                                                             
for violation of these provisions."                                                                                             
CHAIRMAN KOTT invited Representative Coghill to explain changes to                                                              
the bill.  [Before the committee was CSSSHB 179(STA), the title of                                                              
which read:  "An Act relating to the reporting of campaign                                                                      
contributions and to the identification of political campaign                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, sponsor of SSHB 179, explained that                                                                
the bill has been changed from a repeal of APOC [Alaska Public                                                                  
Offices Commission] to a reporting of campaign contributions and                                                                
identification of some communications.  It makes the following                                                                  
changes.  Section 1, amending [AS 15.13.040(a)], was added the                                                                  
previous day in the House State Affairs Committee; it raises the                                                                
limit from $100 to $200 for contributions one can give in an                                                                    
aggregate amount without the contributor having to provide                                                                      
information.  Section 3 inserts "exceeds" [$500]; someone who                                                                   
contributes $499.50 [currently] will not have to put in a reporting                                                             
form, for example, but as soon as the $500 level is reached, the                                                                
contributor must do so, and thus the change.  Section 6 repeals AS                                                              
15.13.080, which is the requirement for the reporting and which                                                                 
read as follows [annotation provided because the 1998 amendment is                                                              
discussed later]:                                                                                                               
     Sec. 15.13.080.   Statement by contributor.                                                                                
          (a) An individual who contributes $500, or goods or                                                                   
     services with a value of $500, to a candidate shall file                                                                   
     a contributor's statement as required by this section.                                                                     
          (b) An individual required to file a contributor's                                                                    
     statement under (a) of this section shall file on a form                                                                   
     made available by the commission. The statement must                                                                       
               (1) identify the contributor and the candidate                                                                   
     and all groups receiving contributions;                                                                                    
               (2) itemize the contributions and goods; and                                                                     
               (3) state that the contributor is not                                                                            
     prohibited by law from contributing and that the                                                                           
     contribution consists of funds or property belonging to                                                                    
     the contributor and has not been given or furnished by                                                                     
     another person or group.                                                                                                   
          (c) The contributor's statement shall be filed with                                                                   
     the commission by the contributor no later than 30 days                                                                    
     after the contribution that requires the contributor to                                                                    
     report under AS 15.13.040(d) is made.                                                                                      
     History -                                                                                                                  
     (Sec. 1 ch 76 SLA 1974; am Sec. 29 ch 189 SLA 1975; am                                                                     
     Sec. 13 ch 48 SLA 1996; am Sec. 8, 9 ch 6 SLA 1998)                                                                        
     Amendment Notes -                                                                                                          
          The 1996 amendment, effective January 1, 1997,                                                                        
     rewrote this section.                                                                                                      
          The 1998 amendment, effective June 28, 1998, rewrote                                                                  
     subsection (a) and, in subsection (c) substituted "30                                                                      
     days" for "10 days" and inserted "that requires the                                                                        
     contributor to report under AS 15.13.040(d)."                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL continued.  He referred to Section 4, lines                                                              
30-31, relating to telephone communications.  He said this was                                                                  
suggested by the department because of a problem that had arisen.                                                               
Beginning on page 2, line 29, [and continuing to page 3, line 1,]                                                               
that language read:                                                                                                             
     In addition, candidates and groups must identify the name                                                                  
     of their campaign chair.  Telephone communications need                                                                    
     only be identified by the name of the candidate, group,                                                                    
     or individual paying for the communication [CHAIRMAN].                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that this came up because of                                                                   
telemarketing where the group wasn't identified; the ruling was                                                                 
made in such a way that there was fear, as he understands it, that                                                              
"it may be required on all telephone communications given by a                                                                  
candidate or his group, which would become tremendously                                                                         
Number 0310                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to Form 15-5 [an APOC form titled "Statement                                                             
of Contributions].  He conveyed his understanding that,                                                                         
essentially, the filing of that form has been eliminated for                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL affirmed that.                                                                                           
CHAIRMAN KOTT commented, "The maximum we can contribute [anyway] is                                                             
$500, so we'll never contribute more than $500."                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded that the burden is put on the                                                                  
candidate or the group running the campaign.  There is a downside,                                                              
however, pointed out by the department:  the reporting is less                                                                  
frequent; it could be annually or just going into an election.                                                                  
That probably will have to be looked at later, Representative                                                                   
Coghill said, as far as how often the campaigners should report.                                                                
But, at this point, putting the burden on the contributor has been                                                              
the issue.                                                                                                                      
Number 0390                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA conveyed her understanding that individuals                                                             
aren't ever going to be reported on that form; it will only be the                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said AS 15.13.080, repealed by Section 6,                                                                
explicitly requires reporting.                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked what happens with polling under the                                                               
telephone communications section now.  For example, if someone is                                                               
just doing a poll, will that be interpreted as not being intended                                                               
to influence the election?                                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL answered that polling is not under this law.                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that is [true] currently, even.                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that if one were doing a survey as                                                             
part of a campaign, which some people think of as polling, it would                                                             
be required.  He suggested there is some crossover and confusion.                                                               
Number 0477                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI expressed uncertainty with regard to how                                                               
telephone communications are defined here.  Noting that backup                                                                  
material for the bill refers to automated telephone messages, she                                                               
surmised that those [messages] would be subject to disclosure.                                                                  
However, if she had sent out invitations to a fund-raising event,                                                               
and if she had somebody following up on that, she understands that                                                              
those telephone communications don't require a disclosure.  She                                                                 
asked whether that is correct.                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said his understanding is that it would [be                                                              
required].  However, at that point it would be almost moot because                                                              
she would be identifying her campaign in inviting people.  "That's                                                              
what we're asking for here, ... that you only identify the name of                                                              
the candidate," he stated.  If he were soliciting contributions,                                                                
Representative Coghill added, his understanding is that he would                                                                
have to identify himself [because it is related to] a campaign                                                                  
contribution; if he were inviting people to an event, he would have                                                             
to identify himself but wouldn't have to "go through the whole                                                                  
thing of 'paid for by.'"                                                                                                        
Number 0577                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that there are telephone hookups                                                                 
into computers.  She asked whether communications over the Internet                                                             
would require some disclosure.                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred to page 2, line 26, the phrase "and                                                             
other communications intended to influence the election".  He said                                                              
he believes that, under "their regulations," one would find that                                                                
computer messages probably would be somehow regulated under that                                                                
[language].  "We wanted to separate telephone communications from                                                               
that, very specifically," he stated.  To his understanding, he                                                                  
said, because of rapidly advancing technology, "other                                                                           
communications" was the best that [the drafters] came up with.  "I                                                              
wasn't there," he added.                                                                                                        
Number 0795                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that it has always infuriated him                                                             
that someone who has made a contribution can be charged with a                                                                  
criminal act for failure to file the proper paperwork.  Therefore,                                                              
he strongly supports that [new language] in other sections.                                                                     
However, he has some concerns about Section 4 regarding telephone                                                               
communications.  He noted that he hadn't had a chance that evening                                                              
to look through the other election statute as it relates to the                                                                 
polling issue.  He said he is very uncomfortable with the language                                                              
as it is now.                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG further noted that polling is allowed in                                                                
other portions of the statute.  An example would occur if one filed                                                             
a letter of intent, prior to even filing for office, to conduct                                                                 
polls and to be able to spend money to inquire about whether a                                                                  
candidate would even have a chance of winning an election.  It                                                                  
seems to him that when one does an information-gathering poll, if                                                               
the group is identified, either before or afterward, it could                                                                   
influence the poll itself.  "The bugaboo is the 'push polling,' and                                                             
that is very problematic to kind of draft language that can make a                                                              
distinction," he stated, adding that he believes that "push                                                                     
polling" should be outlawed unless there is disclosure.  He                                                                     
clarified that if polling is done properly, he believes it should                                                               
not be restricted or have the requirement that the candidate should                                                             
be identified per se, as opposed to having the polling group                                                                    
Number 0818                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to testimony by Brooke Miles of APOC                                                              
before the House State Affairs Committee [which Representative                                                                  
James chairs].  She reported that Ms. Miles had stated that polling                                                             
is not covered and is okay.  "Actually, when it is required is when                                                             
you're intending to convince somebody, in one way or another, to                                                                
vote for or against someone," Representative James said.  "That's                                                               
the distinction.  If you're just asking questions, it's not                                                                     
included; otherwise, it is."  She said the problem is brought to                                                                
light because of computerized telephone calling.  People were                                                                   
incensed because of not knowing who was calling, and there was no                                                               
live person to talk to.  She stated:                                                                                            
     Then they were advised that ... they should disclose.                                                                      
     Well, disclosure means, "This call is paid for by                                                                          
     so-and-so, address so-and-so, ... and the campaign                                                                         
     chairman or treasurer is so-and-so."  It's a whole big,                                                                    
     long thing when you're talking about disclosure.  And ...                                                                  
     this is intended to make it perfectly clear that the only                                                                  
     disclosure that you have to do is, "This is the campaign                                                                   
     of such-and-such," and then go on with your message.  So                                                                   
     [they would] have to do the same thing if it was ... a                                                                     
     computer-generated one and being paid for by the                                                                           
     campaign; the first thing you start out by saying is, ...                                                                  
     "This is from the campaign of such-and-such," [because]                                                                    
     you don't have to have all that other rigamarole that we                                                                   
     have to list off.                                                                                                          
     That's making it more simple, but there still would be a                                                                   
     requirement if you're doing something that is to                                                                           
     influence them, in any way, on the choices that they will                                                                  
     make.  Questioning surveys are strictly just asking                                                                        
     questions, or survey or polling.  There's a difference                                                                     
     between the two.                                                                                                           
Number 0937                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative James whether there had been                                                                 
further discussion with [Ms. Miles] regarding, for example,                                                                     
volunteers trying to persuade a constituent to vote for a                                                                       
candidate.  He noted that this language says "or individual paying                                                              
for the communication."  He asked whether it leads to the same                                                                  
assumption regarding identifying the campaign if there is no                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES answered that it has nothing to do with paying                                                             
for it; rather, it is a question of what campaign the person is                                                                 
from.  When trying to convince someone, by telephone, to vote for                                                               
or against something or someone, one must announce which campaign                                                               
[that person is associated with] before doing that.  She indicated                                                              
the language "paid for" relates to other kinds of things that one                                                               
might be doing.  In response to a request for confirmation that no                                                              
reporting on the forms was required, Representative James added,                                                                
"You just say that 'I'm from such-and-such-a-person's campaign.                                                                 
That's all you need to let them know because ... it's difficult to                                                              
say what the cost is of what they're doing.  It's just a telephone                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she is concerned about the polling                                                                 
aspect, too, because so many arguments could be made relating to                                                                
whether the polling was intended to influence someone, under this.                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said this doesn't change the polling at all.                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied that she knows that is what [Ms.                                                                
Miles] is saying, but she isn't sure that is how it will be read.                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded, "This was the language that was                                                                 
given to us [the House State Affairs Committee] by Brooke [Miles]."                                                             
Number 1061                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Coghill whether there had been                                                               
any discussion about raising the limit on page 2, line 15, from in                                                              
excess of $500 to in excess of $1,000.  He commented:                                                                           
     If you're totally trying to get away from the substantial                                                                  
     amount of obligation that you have, as a contributor, to                                                                   
     file that [APOC Form] 15-5, you really wipe out all the                                                                    
     ... individuals that would contribute; we've reached                                                                       
     their maximum. ... The PACs [political action                                                                              
     committees], their maximum, I believe, is a thousand.                                                                      
     So, if you went beyond a thousand, you would then ...                                                                      
     wipe away the obligation for PACs, and that would only                                                                     
     leave groups ...?  And I'm not sure what the maximum                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that a "person" can be something                                                             
other than an individual, as he understands it.  Referring to line                                                              
10 [page 2], he noted that it says ["individual, person, or group                                                               
making a contribution or expenditure"].  He said the limit for the                                                              
individual is $500; the word "exceeds" was put in there because any                                                             
other "person" or group can, in fact, give up to $1,000.  He added:                                                             
     And yet it is still incumbent upon ... the candidate or                                                                    
     campaign to report all contributions.  So I still think                                                                    
     we're [on] good grounds here.  This just pushes it so                                                                      
     that the individual is excepted here, kind of implying                                                                     
     it, and it's done more explicitly by repealing [AS]                                                                        
     15.13.080, by actually explicitly requiring that they                                                                      
Number 1170                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT said his point is with regard to the question of                                                                  
raising the threshold to $1,000.  He related his understanding that                                                             
political parties can give up to "five" [$500], and said he assumes                                                             
they would still have to file a [Form] 15-5.  He added:                                                                         
     They're not totally sure on that.  But, say, if they                                                                       
     don't have to file that 15-5, then the only group or                                                                       
     person, if you will, that is then still retained, are                                                                      
     those political action committees that can give up to                                                                      
     $1,000.  And if you put in there ... "in excess of a                                                                       
     thousand", then we've taken them out of the picture.  And                                                                  
     if political parties don't have to file that 15-5, then                                                                    
     there's no need for the 15-5, and we're still reporting                                                                    
     it, ... as a receiver of the contribution; we still have                                                                   
     that obligation.  But if you want to totally get away                                                                      
     from filing the form, I'm just wondering if there wasn't                                                                   
     some discussion that took place under (indisc.--simult.                                                                    
     speech) on that amendment.                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded that the genesis was that                                                                      
individuals themselves were being burdened.  Most groups or                                                                     
combinations of people [encompassed] in "person" this year are                                                                  
combining together for a political purpose and, therefore, probably                                                             
would be required to report anyway; he doesn't know that that is a                                                              
bigger burden on them.  Rather, [the burden] is on the individual                                                               
who has to keep an accumulated tally of what he or she has given.                                                               
"And once it breaks that $500 point, then it's a burden on him,                                                                 
with a penalty," Representative Coghill said, suggesting that it                                                                
concerns many people.  Therefore, at this point it is just targeted                                                             
to the individual.                                                                                                              
Number 1268                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT, still addressing Section 3, mentioned the                                                                 
retaining of AS 15.13.040(d), which read in part:                                                                               
     Every individual, person, or group making a contribution                                                                   
     or expenditure shall make a full report, upon a form                                                                       
     prescribed by the commission, of ....                                                                                      
He noted that the only thing changed in the subsequent portion of                                                               
subsection (d) [page 2, Section 3 of the bill] was the replacement                                                              
of the word "reaches" with the word "exceeds."  He asked the                                                                    
reason, then, for repealing AS 15.13.080, which fleshes out what                                                                
one has to say [on the report].                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she thinks that just relates to                                                                   
statements by contributors, not statements by PACs or persons.                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG mentioned that an individual, PAC or group                                                              
can give more.  [He also asked an indiscernible question regarding                                                              
the filing of a Form 15-5.]                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked what prevents the commission from using                                                              
the same old form that would have comported with AS 15.13.080 if it                                                             
hadn't been repealed [by Section 6].                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether there is any difference                                                                  
between a form that a contributor files and a form that a person or                                                             
group files.                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he thinks it is just the [Form] 15-5.                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI [apparently referring to AS 15.13.080]                                                                 
said it is odd that the heading is "statement by the contributor."                                                              
She said it just relates to an individual who contributes $500.                                                                 
Number 1400                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested that changing [AS 15.13.]080 to say                                                              
"contributes more than" would make it jibe with what had been left                                                              
in, in Section 3, and would "leave the guts of a reporting crime."                                                              
He said the only reason for getting rid of .080 seems to be if they                                                             
truly get rid of the contributor's responsibility to report.                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT turned attention to Section 4.  He read the                                                                
new phrase, "Telephone communications need only be identified"                                                                  
[page 2, lines 30-31, of the bill].  He  suggested that the                                                                     
questions they are trying to get to relate to the fact that "polls"                                                             
are not really polls.  He asked whether there would be any harm in                                                              
saying, "Telephone communications intended to influence an election                                                             
need only be identified ...."                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated the bill had that language                                                                       
originally, but Ms. Miles of APOC had thought this other language                                                               
was better.                                                                                                                     
Number 1460                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG informed members that he had drafted an                                                                 
amendment for that.  He read from that hand-written amendment                                                                   
[later amended and adopted as Amendment 1.]  It read [original                                                                  
     p [3] line 1 after [CHAIRMAN] add                                                                                          
     "Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit                                                                    
     informational surveys or polls, if the survey or poll is                                                                   
     not intended to influence the election (etc.) (see p 2                                                                     
     line 26 to line 27 to "question".                                                                                          
SEVERAL UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS said that was either better or good.                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, speaking of the House State Affairs                                                                       
Committee, commented, "We were convinced by Brooke [Miles] we                                                                   
didn't need that."                                                                                                              
Number 1495                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that he had used the phrase                                                                 
"informational surveys or polls" in the amendment.  He suggested                                                                
that perhaps "informational" should be "interrogatory," but he said                                                             
that is a "term of art."                                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded, "As long as you have in there                                                                 
'intended to influence the campaign,' I think that's the qualifier                                                              
...."  He said what he was trying to get in there, although it kept                                                             
running into problems, was that every person or group except for an                                                             
individual making a contribution or expenditure shall make a full                                                               
report.  However, "person" can be, by law, an individual or group.                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented, "I think this works the way we have                                                             
[The amendment was handed out.  There was substantial informal                                                                  
discussion of various aspects of the bill.]                                                                                     
Number 1704                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT called an at-ease, which lasted from 9:04 p.m. to                                                                 
9:10 p.m.  He then asked whether there was further discussion.  He                                                              
labeled Representative Rokeberg's amendment as Amendment 1.                                                                     
Number 1723                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1.                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI and AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER objected.                                                                  
Number 1739                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to amend Amendment 1 by                                                                   
removing the word "informational".  He also offered to explain what                                                             
"(etc.)" means.  He suggested that "informational" is fuzzy and                                                                 
would require definition.                                                                                                       
CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed with simplifying it, as much as possible, at                                                               
this point.                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG specified that the full amendment would                                                                 
     Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit                                                                     
     surveys or polls, if the survey or poll is not intended                                                                    
     to influence the election of a candidate or outcome of                                                                     
     the ballot proposition or question.                                                                                        
Number 1790                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there was any objection to the                                                                      
amendment to Amendment 1; there being no objection, it was adopted.                                                             
Chairman Kott then asked whether there still was an objection to                                                                
Amendment 1, as amended.  None was offered [and an unidentified                                                                 
speaker indicated there was no longer an objection].  Therefore,                                                                
Chairman Kott announced that Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                           
Number 1801                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether a conceptual amendment was                                                                
desired "on the 10-day to 30-day."  [He didn't specify what                                                                     
language he was addressing.]                                                                                                    
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he isn't sure why the 10 days are in there or                                                                
why there was a differentiation between a statement and a report.                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it is clear that the department                                                                    
doesn't even follow it, because even their own form [15-5] doesn't                                                              
follow it; it gives people 30 days.                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI recalled that it was a change within the                                                               
last year.  It has gone from 30 to 10.                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to Form 15-5, which indicates it                                                               
was revised on 1/00 and says 30 days.  Therefore, it doesn't follow                                                             
the law, he pointed out.                                                                                                        
Number 1848                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that [the annotation] under AS                                                                 
15.13.080 says:                                                                                                                 
     The 1998 amendment, effective June 28, 1998, rewrote                                                                       
     subsection (a) and, in subsection (c) substituted "30                                                                      
     days" for "10 days" and inserted "that requires the                                                                        
     contributor to report under AS 15.13.040(d)."                                                                              
He said if that is true, it appears to have been changed there but                                                              
not "in the other one."                                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented, "So we're okay."                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated:                                                                                                    
     But if we're going to change it to 30 days in the other                                                                    
     one - that seems conforming - I think we should keep                                                                       
     .080, which simply sets out the [form].  We're going to                                                                    
     need this form for contributions of $501 on up to parties                                                                  
     or groups or whatever, and there's nothing wrong that                                                                      
     I've heard about .080; it says what you have to state in                                                                   
     there.  Now, what we'd have to say is "an individual who                                                                   
     contributes more than $500" in .080.                                                                                       
Number 1890                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, along that line, suggested perhaps                                                                      
modifying Section 6 to specify [deletion of AS 15.13.]080(c).  He                                                               
requested confirmation that subsection (c) is the one that really                                                               
makes a difference there.  Subsection (c) read:                                                                                 
          c) The contributor's statement shall be filed with                                                                    
     the commission by the contributor no later than 30 days                                                                    
     after the contribution that requires the contributor to                                                                    
     report under AS 15.13.040(d) is made.                                                                                      
Number 1903                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to subsection (a), which read:                                                                    
          a) An individual who contributes $500, or goods or                                                                    
     services with a value of $500, to a candidate shall file                                                                   
     a contributor's statement as required by this section.                                                                     
He stated:                                                                                                                      
     If we make .080 to be an individual who contributes more                                                                   
     than, ... and we've changed the other to be 30 days,                                                                       
     we've made the two consistent with each other and                                                                          
     exempted the $500 contributor.  The $501 contributor is                                                                    
     still going to have to do it, and it seems to me if                                                                        
     they're going to have to do it, [it might as well be] on                                                                   
     the form that we've done.  I don't have any problem with                                                                   
     changing the 10 to 30, as long -- and I'd be more                                                                          
     comfortable with Brooke [Miles] here or somebody from                                                                      
     APOC.  But as long as there are those 24-hour rules right                                                                  
     before the election, it makes more sense to have it 30.                                                                    
     But then I'd urge us to keep .080 but simply make it                                                                       
     conform by saying "who contributes more than $500."                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she didn't have any problem with that.                                                                
In response to a question by Representative Rokeberg, she said                                                                  
getting rid of .080 doesn't get rid of the need for the form.                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether there is authorization of the                                                             
form in "the other part."                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES affirmed that.                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that .080 is superfluous or                                                                   
redundant, then.                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT responded that there is still language in [AS                                                                     
15.13.]040 that suggests there will be a form used to file                                                                      
[regarding] contributions.                                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that is in subsection (d).                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he doesn't see any real value in retaining .080                                                              
because there will still be the form.                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES added, "Unless we were to up the individual                                                                
contributions to a thousand; then we'd need it.  Otherwise, we                                                                  
don't need it."                                                                                                                 
Number 1903                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that there is a different form in                                                              
subsection (a) of [AS 15.13.]040.  He read from that language                                                                   
[provided in Section 1], noting that it currently applies to                                                                    
anything over $100 and will now apply to anything over $200.                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said that isn't Form 15-5, however.                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed.                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL added that it would still be prescribed by                                                               
the commission.                                                                                                                 
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he thinks it is a different form.                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said there are only two forms upon which to                                                                
report, this one [Form 15-5] and the "regular APOC form that                                                                    
candidates and groups and everybody has to file."                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI added that one is a candidate form, and                                                                
one is a contributor form.                                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded that subsection (d) is only                                                                    
talking about the contributor.                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI agreed.                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that by taking .080 out, it doesn't get                                                               
rid of the form or [the filing requirement], and it doesn't get rid                                                             
of those who contribute [more than] $500.                                                                                       
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether that was the testimony from APOC in the                                                             
House State Affairs Committee.                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded, "The lady from APOC did say that                                                              
she had not had a chance to talk to the commissioner, to give her                                                               
credit.  But, on the other hand, she did know that we were                                                                      
repealing that and did not make any contribution for keeping it."                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said [Ms. Miles] hadn't talked about any                                                                   
opinion from the commissioner; she had only come forward with her                                                               
own evaluation of the changes.                                                                                                  
Number 2146                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said the main difference seems to be that in                                                               
.080 it says one must do a statement, on [Form] 15-5, that the                                                                  
contributor is not prohibited by law from making a contribution.                                                                
He pointed out that that language is at the bottom of the form,                                                                 
under the certification section.  Representative Croft said that                                                                
isn't a requirement of [subsection] (a).  In fact, (a) says only                                                                
that each candidate shall make a full report.  If the committee                                                                 
deletes [AS 15.13.]080, which is the "statement by contributor" and                                                             
the form for it, they will have deleted the form that [AS                                                                       
15.13.040](d) uses.  Representative Croft commented:                                                                            
     If we think that a person who gives $1,000 or $5,000 to                                                                    
     a political party ought to make a report of that, and                                                                      
     certify that ... that's their money and such, then we                                                                      
     need to keep .080.  If we don't, then we need to change                                                                    
     (d) to reflect it, 'cause right now ... we're keeping the                                                                  
     requirement of anything over 500 [dollars], and we're                                                                      
     eliminating the form of the form.                                                                                          
Number 2207                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded, "Well, it sure doesn't hurt - just                                                              
to get on with this - to change, in the first line there, 'over                                                                 
[$]500' and leave it in there.  It's not going to do any damage."                                                               
CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed that it wouldn't do any damage.                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said "exceeds" $500 is fine.                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, "We'd have to change that on the first                                                               
line so that it says 'with a value of more than [$]500' or                                                                      
'exceeding' -- 'an individual contributes in excess of [$]500' and                                                              
'with a value ... in excess of [$]500', two changes there, and then                                                             
leave that in there, and it solves all the problems of whether or                                                               
not we need it.                                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVES MURKOWSKI asked, "So we're not repealing it, which                                                              
is what [Representative Croft] wanted to do all along, right?"                                                                  
CHAIRMAN KOTT responded, "That's the gist of it. ... We're                                                                      
retaining it, even though I'd be surprised if they're not using                                                                 
that form over in .040 as well.  That's fine. ... Still, this is,                                                               
I think, where we want to get to."  He asked whether committee                                                                  
members were happy with that particular change.                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES suggested it could be a conceptual amendment                                                               
to make those two changes.                                                                                                      
Number 2260                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT specified that the change is to retain AS 15.30.080.                                                              
Deleted would be line 20 of page 3 [which said:  "* Sec. 6.  AS                                                                 
15.13.080 is repealed."]  He added:                                                                                             
     We'll insert Section 6, [AS] 15.13.080, and then ...                                                                       
     we'll make that change in (a), "is amended to read," and                                                                   
     we'll put basically the same language, "in excess of                                                                       
     $500", in those two areas. ... That ensures that we're                                                                     
     not screwing up the form, I guess.                                                                                         
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the committee would adopt the                                                                      
foregoing as Amendment 2.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked, "Do we need that 10-day, 30-day                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded, "No, it's in here.  It was changed,                                                             
it says here."                                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied that it was changed "there" but not in                                                             
subsection(e) of [AS 15.13.]040.                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT said simultaneously that it wasn't changed in                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether [AS 15.13.]080 has 30 days in                                                             
Number 2310                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES read in part from the annotation to AS                                                                     
15.13.080, discussed previously, which said:                                                                                    
     The 1998 amendment, effective June 28, 1998, rewrote                                                                       
     subsection (a) and, in subsection (c) substituted "30                                                                      
     days" for "10 days" and inserted "that requires the                                                                        
     contributor to report under AS 15.13.040(d)."                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether, with Amendment 2, they                                                                   
hadn't kept the burden on the contributor but not the candidate or                                                              
the recipient.                                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied:                                                                                                   
     We have.  Anything that's over 500 [dollars], we have.                                                                     
     And anything that is under 500, if it's ... other than an                                                                  
     individual, we haven't excluded it.  We've only excluded                                                                   
     individuals.  Isn't that correct?  So, if it's a group or                                                                  
     a PAC or whatever, and it's under 500, they still have to                                                                  
     do it because we haven't excluded that ... for them.                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether a Form 15-5 is needed just                                                                
because it is a group.                                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said, "Every individual, person or group                                                               
- it has to exceed 500 [dollars]."                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested it needs to be consistent [to                                                                 
avoid] having two different standards and confusion.                                                                            
Number 2369                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked, "10 days and 30 days?"  He specified that it                                                               
would be in AS 15.13.040(e).                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that is the only thing that makes sense                                                               
to him.  Although he would be more comfortable with an APOC                                                                     
representative there [at the hearing], he suggested doing that                                                                  
[amendment] and asking APOC the following day.  He said it seems to                                                             
jibe the two sections.                                                                                                          
Number 2395                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed that it would be consistent, at least.  He                                                                 
specified that AS 15.13.040(e) would be amended to read "30 days                                                                
after the contribution is made".  He noted that it would be no                                                                  
later than 30 days; it would change 10 days to 30 days.  He asked                                                               
whether everybody understood that amendment, and indicated APOC                                                                 
would be contacted about it in the morning.                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG clarified that the rationale is to make all                                                             
the reporting deadlines consistent, for all parties and "all                                                                    
different aspects of the law."                                                                                                  
CHAIRMAN KOTT labeled the foregoing as conceptual Amendment 3.  He                                                              
announced that without objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.                                                                      
TAPE 00-71, SIDE B                                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to delete Section 5.  He                                                                     
explained that he had searched through [Section 5]; all he could                                                                
find was that it deleted, on page 3, line 5 of the bill, AS                                                                     
15.13.080(c) from the report.  He indicated he saw no need for                                                                  
Section 5 because it is just a references to .080, which the                                                                    
committee has put back in.                                                                                                      
CHAIRMAN KOTT labeled that Amendment 4.  He asked whether there was                                                             
any objection; none was offered.  [Thus Amendment 4 was treated as                                                              
Number 0082                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to delete Sections 1 and 2                                                                   
[Amendment 5].                                                                                                                  
[The only change made in CSSSHB 179(STA), Sections 1 and 2, was                                                                 
replacing "in excess of $100" with "in excess of $200".  For                                                                    
Section 1, amending AS 15.13.040(a), that is found in the bill on                                                               
page 1, line 8.  For Section 2, amending AS 15.13.040(b), that is                                                               
found in the bill on page 2, line 4.]                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained:                                                                                                 
     I think an important amount of information that the                                                                        
     public should have is those contributors in that range.                                                                    
     In the Knowles-Ulmer campaign of last time, there were                                                                     
     140 contributors under 200 [dollars], and they totaled                                                                     
     ... more than $27,000.  This is not small money.  It is                                                                    
     not, in my experience, a particularly horribly onerous                                                                     
     deal - [I] pay somebody to do it, who does it fairly                                                                       
     inexpensively, and ... reporting the $100 checks doesn't                                                                   
     bankrupt me as a candidate .... You've just got to keep                                                                    
     good track of your stuff.  But it is important to know.                                                                    
In response to a question, Representative Croft indicated most of                                                               
those [Knowles-Ulmer] contributions were right at $200, but many                                                                
were for less.  He indicated he thinks that the current rule,                                                                   
requiring [reporting] for amounts over $100, is fair enough.                                                                    
Number 0142                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES remarked that the whole reason for changing it                                                             
is because of "what we've heard from contributors."  State                                                                      
employees, for example, would be happy to give somebody a campaign                                                              
contribution, but they don't want their names listed, for whatever                                                              
reasons they have.  She emphasized that the amount has been $100                                                                
since 1975; with inflation applied, it [would be] $209.  It is a                                                                
matter of whether that is a small contribution or not, she said;                                                                
she noted that Ms. Miles hadn't offered discussion about that.                                                                  
Representative James said it isn't a matter of being inconvenienced                                                             
but a matter of whether people want their names reported, and how                                                               
much they can give before that is a problem.  She herself believes                                                              
that $200 isn't a problem; it is not a huge contribution.  She                                                                  
concluded, "If people want to do it, and don't want to have their                                                               
name listed, why should they have to do that?"                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented that she thinks the federal                                                                  
reporting requirements are for anything over $250.                                                                              
Number 0212                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG reported that his wife has been a "BETA"                                                                
(ph) tester for the APOC program for the last year or so.  The $100                                                             
contributions are handled differently in the computer program.  He                                                              
referred to the new large fiscal note [from APOC, dated 4/26/00];                                                               
he asked whether that relates to computer reprogramming.                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she cannot figure out why it is a problem                                                             
at all.                                                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said a contract consultant has built the                                                                
program that puts APOC reports on the computer and over the                                                                     
Internet.  He suggested that if one knew how to hack into the                                                                   
computer system, one could find out the names.                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES disagreed that one could find out the names,                                                               
adding that "no one knows what they are because I haven't given                                                                 
them to them."                                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that in order to use the APOC                                                               
program, however, the name must be entered to make the                                                                          
contributions balance.  There is a defect in the program, he                                                                    
Number 0256                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded, "Then let's get rid of the program                                                              
because that totally destroys what the intent is.  I did not know                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG clarified that it isn't public information,                                                             
but the name and dollar amount have to be entered into the computer                                                             
program in order to make it work.                                                                                               
CHAIRMAN KOTT said supposedly there are some security measures that                                                             
will prevent the average citizen from accessing the information.                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG surmised that that is what the money is [in                                                             
the fiscal note], for reprogramming.  "So if you took this out, it                                                              
would lower the fiscal note," he concluded.                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied, "I don't believe that."                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG admitted that he was just guessing.                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT suggested there would only be a change of one or two                                                              
words in the instructions [that would require reprogramming].                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that it is a customized program                                                             
rather than being off-the-shelf software.                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she would be surprised if it cost more                                                                
than $2,500 [to reprogram].                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT pointed out that eliminating the vast number of                                                                   
individual 15-5 forms would mean those would no longer need to be                                                               
analyzed, reviewed, entered or followed up on.  He suggested there                                                              
may be some savings there.                                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded, "At least on the file cabinets                                                               
to put the things in."                                                                                                          
Number 0358                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there was further discussion on                                                                     
Amendment 5.                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT observed that there had been no formal                                                                     
objection but a lot of dissent.                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES proposed that perhaps it should be made like                                                               
the federal [limit], at $250.                                                                                                   
CHAIRMAN KOTT suggested that if a change is wanted, it should be                                                                
made now, rather than coming back next year and spending another                                                                
$60,000 or whatever it costs for reprogramming.                                                                                 
Number 0377                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented, "If we went to 250 [dollars], that                                                              
brings up a problem because in the closing days of the campaign,                                                                
any contribution over 250 [dollars] you have to report within 24                                                                
hours.  This might eliminate that problem, too."                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded, "No, it wouldn't, but I wouldn't                                                             
mind eliminating it."  He moved to adopt the original bill.  [There                                                             
were ensuing comments and laughter.]                                                                                            
Number 0407                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to a full-page newspaper                                                                          
advertisement paid for by "Responsible Cruising in Alaska, Juneau,                                                              
Alaska" [not provided in packets].  He said it certainly was                                                                    
intended to influence legislation, and this group is not listed                                                                 
with APOC.  He asked whether something should be done to correct                                                                
this situation.                                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded that he had seen it, and it isn't                                                                
intended to influence a campaign or initiative.  He stated, "I                                                                  
don't know that we have any, or should have any, restriction on                                                                 
people taking whatever methods they want to influence legislation,                                                              
even some that border on or cross the offensive."  Representative                                                               
Croft said that is people's right to do.  [The legislature] has set                                                             
limits and disclosures when someone is trying to influence an                                                                   
election or an initiative on the ballot.  The people, in effect,                                                                
have a right to know when someone is trying to influence those, on                                                              
those public votes.  However, the people don't have a vote on that                                                              
piece of legislation [referred to in the newspaper]; only                                                                       
legislators have a vote on that.  Representative Croft said he                                                                  
worries that [limiting that] would come up against not only First                                                               
Amendment concerns "but just that we don't need to."  He concluded,                                                             
"In effect, that's the people trying to influence us. ... And                                                                   
whether offensive or not, I'm not sure that we need to restrict or                                                              
limit it."                                                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded, "They should disclose who they                                                               
Number 0511                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT returned attention to Amendment 5.  He asked whether                                                              
there was further discussion.                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected.                                                                                                  
CHAIRMAN KOTT conveyed his understanding that Representative James'                                                             
objection was based on inflation, if nothing else.                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded, "Absolutely."                                                                                   
CHAIRMAN KOTT added that Representative Rokeberg has suggested that                                                             
the fiscal note will perhaps come down.                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented:                                                                                              
     It's a little bit of a public perception here, to a                                                                        
     degree, on it, although I support the concept of the bill                                                                  
     here.  I think it's warranted.  But I am concerned about                                                                   
     public perception whenever we're changing campaign law.                                                                    
     The most important part of this bill is the 15-5                                                                           
     penalties against contributors, which I think is                                                                           
     offensive; it always has been to me.                                                                                       
CHAIRMAN KOTT pointed out that the committee isn't changing any                                                                 
provision in the campaign law that would allow anyone to                                                                        
contribute, or [candidates] to receive, any greater amount than                                                                 
what currently exists today.  "All this does is just provide some                                                               
concealment to those that may want to contribute over that ... $100                                                             
threshold," he concluded.                                                                                                       
Number 0581                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA told members that she thinks that                                                                       
concealment is the question.  Even if the contributor has only                                                                  
given $5, it is potentially public [information].  She stated:                                                                  
     All that has to be done is someone ask you for your                                                                        
     records, and you've got to come forward with them.  So,                                                                    
     the person who contributes to a political campaign has no                                                                  
     protection from having their [name] delivered.  And I                                                                      
     think $100 is something everyone is used to; the public                                                                    
     is used to it.  They can't give more than 500 [dollars].                                                                   
     Every one of us probably has a computer program that                                                                       
     looks up the names.  I'd keep it at 100 [dollars].  I                                                                      
     wouldn't, at this point of session, go to raising it.                                                                      
     ... It's interesting listening to the inflation question,                                                                  
     but I don't think that's the heart of it.  The heart of                                                                    
     it is the public's right to know.  And I think that once                                                                   
     you start dealing in campaign finances, the public has a                                                                   
     real broad right to know.  So I'd keep it at 100                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES suggested, in essence, that people often                                                                   
contribute to several things but limit themselves to $100 in total.                                                             
She finds it very difficult to get enough money for a campaign                                                                  
because she lives in a poor district, she indicated, and would like                                                             
it if people were willing to give her more money because of having                                                              
a higher limit before listing their names on a report.                                                                          
Representative James said she has no problem with campaign                                                                      
disclosure.  She concluded:                                                                                                     
     What I have a problem with is what they do with the                                                                        
     disclosure.  And ... if you want people to help you to                                                                     
     get elected, they should be able to do it without being                                                                    
     intimidated.  And I think that having that at $200 allows                                                                  
     them a little bit more freedom to do that - allows me to                                                                   
     get a little bit more money.                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested the only person reading [the                                                                  
disclosure] would be the opponent anyway.                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, "And the newspaper.  The newspaper's the                                                             
worst one."                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested having a CPI [cost-price index]                                                               
clause.  He then agreed with Representative James that it is                                                                    
getting increasingly difficult to raise money for a campaign, which                                                             
is to the benefit of incumbents who weren't born with a "silver                                                                 
spoon."  He doesn't think that the public is ready to accept or                                                                 
recognize that yet, he added.                                                                                                   
Number 0766                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI told fellow members that she isn't                                                                     
convinced that by requiring disclosure at $100 or more, "we really                                                              
lose that many contributors," even though perhaps the occasional                                                                
state employee doesn't want his or her name on there, and,                                                                      
therefore, gives $99.                                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked how many checks one receives for $99.                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she is looking at it from the same                                                                
point of view that Representative Rokeberg is.  She stated:                                                                     
     From the public's point of view, is this a concern that                                                                    
     we are able to hide more money - $27,000 if we take                                                                        
     [Representative Croft's] numbers [regarding the                                                                            
     Knowles-Ulmer campaign]?  I'm hoping that one of these                                                                     
     days everything that we get in campaign contributions is                                                                   
     going to be posted on the Internet anyway, and we don't                                                                    
     have to deal with this silly reporting stuff - going back                                                                  
     to [Representative Coghill's] original bill here - in                                                                      
     which case this whole conversation becomes somewhat                                                                        
     The comment was made that perhaps we look at the federal                                                                   
     limit, and I don't know that it's necessary to go that                                                                     
     far.  I just don't see what we gain by bumping it up, at                                                                   
     this point in time.  The inflation argument is an                                                                          
     argument to be made, but I think ... it's going to not                                                                     
     what people are willing to give but the whole disclosure                                                                   
     aspect of it.  And are we willing to disclose those                                                                        
     people that are contributing to us?  I don't think that                                                                    
     there should be any reason why we're not.                                                                                  
Number 0859                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES withdrew her objection, noting that she still                                                              
thinks [the $200 in Sections 1 and 2] is a very good idea; that is                                                              
why she had put that in, in the House State Affairs Committee.  If                                                              
everyone else was going to object, however, she wouldn't stop [the                                                              
bill] from going forward.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested that the arguments being made are                                                             
good ones for public funding for campaigns, which would allow                                                                   
people more ability to enter politics.                                                                                          
Number 0900                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there was further discussion on                                                                     
Amendment 5; no discussion or objection was offered.  He announced                                                              
that, without objection, Amendment 5 was adopted, deleting Sections                                                             
1 and 2 of the bill.                                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI, in response to indications that not much                                                              
remained of the bill, pointed out that it still gets rid of Form                                                                
15-5, which is important.  She believes that Form 15-5 has                                                                      
discouraged people from giving money.                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed that it is an important step.                                                                       
CHAIRMAN KOTT commented that the only thing that is not narrow is                                                               
the title.  He turned attention to the fiscal note, specifying that                                                             
he believes a [positive] fiscal note is no longer necessary because                                                             
of adoption of Amendment 1.  He suggested that such things are                                                                  
commonly done "under the auspices of a change in statute" without                                                               
any associated costs.  Chairman Kott pointed out that there once                                                                
was a zero fiscal note, and the only change made was the addition                                                               
of Sections 1 and 2 [in the House State Affairs Committee].                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that the House State Affairs                                                                     
Committee did the zero fiscal note.                                                                                             
Number 1060                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt a House Judiciary                                                                
Committee zero fiscal note.                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he wouldn't object to that, but he would                                                              
ask "them" [APOC] the following day whether the change in Sections                                                              
1 and 2 means that they would essentially agree.                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT moved that the committee adopt either a House                                                                     
Judiciary Committee zero fiscal note or the House State Affairs                                                                 
Committee [zero] fiscal note.  He specified that, if possible, the                                                              
latter would be adopted.                                                                                                        
Number 1111                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move CSSSHB 179(STA), as                                                               
amended, from committee with individual recommendation and the                                                                  
House State Affairs Committee fiscal note attached.                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT commented that before sending it over to the                                                               
other body, he would do something about the title, probably on the                                                              
CHAIRMAN KOTT suggested the title ought to be the bill itself.  He                                                              
said he would be more than happy to adjust the title, if the                                                                    
committee so desired.                                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented that Sections 3 and 4 remain.                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to rescind his motion.                                                                            
Number 1156                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT offered a conceptual amendment [Amendment 6]                                                               
to write "a very tight title under this bill."                                                                                  
CHAIRMAN KOTT restated that the tightest title would be the bill.                                                               
He specified that Amendment 6 would construct a very tight title                                                                
that would basically repeat the contents of the bill, "or something                                                             
similar."  [No objection was stated; thus Amendment 6 was treated                                                               
as adopted.]                                                                                                                    
Number 1188                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG renewed his motion to move CSSSHB 179(STA),                                                             
as amended, from committee with individual recommendations and the                                                              
attached House State Affairs Committee zero fiscal note.  There                                                                 
being no objection, CSSSHB 179(JUD) was moved from the House                                                                    
Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                                   

Document Name Date/Time Subjects