Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/30/1996 08:00 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 368 - ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM HB 317 - ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM Number 2000 The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Committee was HB 368 and HB 317. CHAIR JAMES said the committee was to look at the individual sections today. She further said a committee substitute would be written based on the testimony and discussion in the committee. Number 2082 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON suggested adding the clause "there is a perception from the public" instead of "the legislature finds." CHAIR JAMES said in the last meeting we discussed perception versus reality. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked when the merit of the legislation versus the initiative would be discussed. She stated many people called her office to say they were upset a piece of legislation was being considered. She said she thought they would be pleased that the legislature was addressing the issue. She asserted a bill needed to mirror the existing initiative. She asked if the other members of the committee also received the same feedback. Number 2210 CHAIR JAMES said she had a few calls from people distressed about the bill. She further said it was an obligation to the people to discuss the issue. She also stated the committee should take heed to the drafters. She alleged things needed to be defined. She reiterated it was not the intention to challenge the initiative's efforts. Chair James asserted it was understandable the people involved in the initiative would be upset because they obviously felt the legislature could not deal with it directly. She said she hoped the committee process would convince the people legislators were more honorable than believed. She alleged the initiative was a lawyer's chance and a court's nightmare. TAPE 96-7, SIDE A Number 0000 REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN started by addressing the sections. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Section 2 conformed to a later section. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Section 3 read municipalities could regulate more strictly than state law. He said he was not sure if they were completely restricted from that right now, however. Section 3, therefore, was a clarification. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Section 4 addressed inflation adjustment. He said HB 368 and the initiative made all amounts subject to an inflation adjustment, whereas HB 317 tied inflation adjustment to actual contribution limits only. He alleged the other minor amounts were silly to adjust and should stay at a round number. He recommended the approach in HB 317. Number 0208 CHAIR JAMES said she had an aversion to the consumer price index and the measurement of inflation. She alleged inflation measurements created a consumer price index. She suggested a statute to change the amounts instead of a provision in a bill. Number 0274 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said in five years the amounts were reviewed and adjusted according to Section 4. He suggested establishing a maximum contribution figure instead of adjusting for inflation. Number 0308 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Section 4 in HB 317 only turned the power over to the commission. Number 0346 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said if Section 4 were deleted an amendment would be needed to adjust the amount. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Representative Porter was correct. Number 0369 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN continued addressing the sections. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Section 5 was a conforming amendment. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Section 6 was a cost saving step. The section, he asserted, stated candidates that did not raise more than $1,000 or intend to raise more than $1,000 did not have to deal with the provisions of this chapter. The reason, he said, was to help the rural and smaller school board elections, for example. He alleged there were many elections this section applied to due to the small communities. He also said the $1,000 figure was not a magic figure and probably could be slightly higher. Number 0473 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER called on a witness from the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC). Number 0488 BROOKE MILES, Regulation of Lobbying, Public Offices Commission, Department of Administration, said the commission had a teleconference on HB 368 yesterday, and a written statement was being prepared. Number 0520 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if a provision existed to exclude a candidate who did not intend to spend more than $1,000. Number 0535 MS. MILES said under current commission policy, it did permit candidates for municipal offices to file an exemption if they did not intend to or raise more than $1,000. Number 0554 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the law was not clear, and if someone challenged it they would succeed. Section 6, he stated, would extend the exemption to state offices as well. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Section 7 precluded the 50 percent provision. He said there was confusion when drafting the bill and it did not reflect the initiative. The bill said if a group supported or opposed and contributed to one candidate more than 50 percent of its funds, the name of the candidate should be part of the name of the group. He further suggested adopting the provisions in HB 317 instead of HB 368. Section 7 also called for registering before making an expenditure. Number 0736 CHAIR JAMES said if you had to register before making a contribution the 50 percent concept was gone. Number 0751 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the 50 percent was separate and only related to the title of the group. According to Mike Frank, he alleged, there was a mistake when interpreting the intent of the initiative. He said it was corrected in HB 317. Number 0833 CHAIR JAMES commented she was concerned about the general public interpreting the initiative when a bill drafter had problems. Number 0864 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN continued addressing the sections. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Section 8 stated only an individual or a group of individuals could make a contribution to a candidate. However, non-individuals could not contribute to a candidate. He stated this was the rule at the federal level. He cited labor unions and corporation contributions were banned during and prior to the 1940's. Number 0967 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated only individuals and political action groups could make contributions to a candidate, and cited the political action group was limited to $500, and the individual $250. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said it was $500 from a group and $500 from an individual. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked how much an individual could make a contribution to a political action group. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied $250. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded a political action group could make a contribution to a candidate of $500. He asked if a political action group could be a group of employees at a business, for example. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied yes. He further said at the federal level that was the type of political action groups that proliferated. He said he did not suspect that would happen at the state level because the amount limits were the same as for individuals. He cited at the federal level the contribution limit was five times higher for groups. Number 1091 CHAIR JAMES asserted she would get rid of political action groups altogether. However, she said, she did not want to water down the initiative. Number 1114 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said under the first amendment the right to assemble in the political realm was the right to assemble in a political group. He stated it was upheld at the federal level. Number 1155 CHAIR JAMES said a constitutional amendment was being discussed at the federal level to fix the problem of political action groups. She reiterated she wished they did not exist. She said Section 8 presumed only individuals could make contributions to political action groups and candidates, therefore, this eliminated revenue from charitable gaming activity, for example. Number 1213 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the bills did not address charitable gaming. He said, Mike Frank believed the vast majority of the charitable gaming money came when a group turned its permit over to an operator or vender and received the proceeds. He stated that would be a corporation giving money to a political group which was not allowed. There was a contrary view, he said, but he did not know the answer. He announced he believed it would still be prohibited. He cited legislation from Representative Martin and Senator Pearce addressing charitable gaming. He further stated, the legislation allowed activity for a group to interact with the public in the attempt to solicit funds that clearly demonstrated where the funds would go. Number 1294 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if Mr. Frank believed there was an avenue for gaming proceeds through the political group to reach the candidate. Number 1315 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN responded the initiative committee believed a third party vendor raising money for a political group was prohibited. He cited that was a corporation and it was not allowed. He further said there was a contrary view, but he did not agree with it. In conclusion, he said, there was not a problem discussing the charitable gaming issue. Number 1348 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would like to stay on the same page as the initiative. He stated he supported strengthening the language to preclude charitable gaming proceeds if it were the wish of the committee and the direction of the initiative. Number 1382 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied there was a difference in the initiative and the bills between someone who raised money on their own with a permit, such as a raffle, and in the way money was raised in reality. He suggested clarifying the issue. Number 1421 CHAIR JAMES said we should clarify the issue by stating only individuals could give to groups, and that money from groups could only come from individuals. Therefore, groups could only make collections and not earn money in any other manner. Number 1446 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON inquired about auction fund raising for candidates. Number 1457 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said a charitable gaming permit was not required for an auction. Number 1480 CHAIR JAMES read the following statement into the record from Ken Waldman, Box 22498, Juneau, Alaska 99802, (907) 463-8753. "Legislators now writing their own versions of a campaign finance reform bill, and legislators who support those efforts, just don't get it. "1) The work is wasteful duplication. A decent initiative signed by more than 32,000 Alaskans is already on the ballot this November. Supposedly busy people, don't legislators realize their time can better be spent on issues that haven't yet reached the petition stage? Or do 32,000 Alaskans continually have to sign petitions to be heard? "2) The work is cynical. After years of blocking such a measure, they're rushing forward only because it will be on the ballot. Being in touch with their constituents--a part of the job, yes?-- would have revealed a large number did indeed approve the measure. "3) The work is arrogant. The official line is they'll write a "better" bill. In reality, no writing is perfect; all writing is flawed, as will their bill be, only in different ways. The real reason has got to be to take this issue out of voters' hands, silence our voices. "4) The work is absurd. Giving the legislators the benefit of the doubt, I'm reminded of a movie scene where fire fighters arrive to save a town on fire. Only trouble, everything's cold rubble. The fire fighters are sincere, but inept. Wanting to help, they're days late. "No wonder more than 32,000 Alaskans signed the initiative. No wonder so many of us are disgusted. No wonder we need reform, and have needed it for years. "Keep at them." CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Anchorage, Robert Gigler. Number 1550 ROBERT GIGLER asked if Representative Green was present. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied yes. MR. GIGLER referred to a memorandum from a teleconference meeting. He said he had a problem with contributions from the national parties to the state of Alaska. He cited the National Republican Party made enormous campaign contributions and should not be allowed. He also asserted the $50 civil penalty should be raised to $500. He said after the appeal process the $50 went down to nothing. He also said it was the initiative petition to be on the ballot in November of 1996. In conclusion he said we need to get something done. He further said he was filing over 50 complaints from February 15 - 17, 1996 because no one was filing within the ten day time frame. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Barrow, Frank Smith. Number 1731 FRANK SMITH said he agreed with virtually everything Representative Finkelstein said. He further stated he was opposed to the contribution amount from political groups as it disturbed the political process. He alleged when a candidate had access to large sums of money it corrupted the process. He also said he was concerned the language in the bill exempted municipalities that chose to do so. He cited the "wet status" election in Barrow where it was unable to determine exactly where the money came from because the municipality many years ago chose to exempt itself. He suggested eliminating the language from the bill. Number 1790 CHAIR JAMES said the bill stated municipalities could get stronger and not weaker.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|