Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/24/1998 08:07 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CSSB 275(STA) - FUND RAISING: GOV; LT. GOV; & CANDIDATES Number 0021 CHAIR JAMES announced the committee's first order of business was CSSB 275(STA), "An Act specifying time periods for making, soliciting, or accepting campaign contributions to candidates for state office; and providing for an effective date." Number 0041 PORTIA PARKER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Mike Miller, came forward to present CSSB 275(STA). She stated, as the committee was probably aware from the discussions on other legislation pending before the committee, that the bill would not be new. MS. PARKER stated CSSB 275(STA) would change AS 15.13.072 and AS 15.13.074 to require the same campaign fund-raising rules for soliciting contributions and accepting contributions to all those seeking state office. Everyone seeking state office would be under the same campaign financing rules. She said under current law that is not the case; it does not apply to candidates for governor and lieutenant governor, and does apply to all other candidates for the legislature as well as incumbent legislators running for state office. Ms. Parker noted several changes from current law that would affect candidates as well as incumbents, and she stated everyone would have the same financing restrictions for regular and special sessions. Both incumbent office holders, if they filed for office, and candidates who were not incumbents, would be restricted from fund-raising during regular and special sessions. Ms. Parker said that in order to avoid the problem of the summer special session, or one falling too close to an election, an exemption was inserted for the 90 days immediately preceding a election for which that person was a candidate. She mentioned the special election in April during the middle of the session several years ago, and indicated this exemption would get rid of any associated problems. She said candidates for that special election would be able to fund-raise during the session for the 90 days immediately preceding the special election. Number 0248 CHAIR JAMES stated she supports this idea because it is an issue of fairness, however what she sees "happening is the same thing that legislative candidates have to do is crunched into a short period of time," when the focus is going to be on fund-raising instead of campaigning, noting, to her, they are two different issues. She suggested opening up the off-election year to avoid this difficulty, using the analogy of "putting people into a box," and she asked if this idea had been considered. MS. PARKER replied the Senate had not addressed it in discussions or during the floor debate on SB 275. She said she is not sure if there would be any opposition to that idea, or why that decision was made during the bill's original passage two years ago, noting she had not been there during that time. Number 0347 CHAIR JAMES stated Ms. Parker understood her reasoning was that they were "closing the box down" almost to an unreasonable amount of time, and she mentioned incumbent legislators were restricted from fund-raising during the session. REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked what the impact on the proposed legislation would be if the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) lawsuit to overturn the state's present campaign financing law was successful. MS. PARKER stated she was not sure because the changes made here contained some of the restrictions, referring to the restriction on legislators and candidates, which were part of that challenge. CHAIR JAMES stated, "If I might try. If we have a law, it's dated a certain date and there's a lawsuit to overturn that law, it would appear to me that that date of that law would be overturned, if subsequent another law that did the same thing would be happening, I would think, unless they're specific in language and exactly the same. Then I think that the second one would prevail, because ... it's different than the first one." Chair James said that would be her understanding, noting she was not an attorney. Number 0483 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he thought if that lawsuit was successful, it would solve part of the problems this law is trying to solve. In another question, he referred to Section 3 of the bill, noting it said the Act would take effect immediately and asked what that meant. MS. PARKER answered that it would take effect immediately after, either the Governor signed the bill or let it become law without his signature; or if vetoed then overridden, immediately after the veto was overridden. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated he was a bit persuaded by the letter the committee had received from Mr. Ross [LATER WITNESS] which said this somewhat changes "the deal" after he got into it. Representative Dyson said at least his preliminary opinion is that he would probably move to amend the bill to make it effective after the end of the session, so that Mr. Ross could continue to campaign under the deal which was in place when he signed up. Representative Dyson noted this seemed fair, although the whole thing was problematic, stating, "I mean what we have now and what you all are trying to do." Number 1127 REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON stated he had two questions. First he wanted to make sure the provision on page 1, line 9, quoting "you can solicit and accept campaign contributions during the 90 days immediately preceding an election," essentially meant contributions could be solicited and accepted if there was a special session anytime after the end of May. MS. PARKER stated that was correct, everyone would be able to. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON, in his second question, gave a hypothetical situation, "Last year we had the mayor's race (in Juneau). Under the provisions of this bill, or the rewrite of this bill, this now allows me to solicit campaign contributions during the session if I'm making a race for mayor, is that correct, because nine months preceding I can begin raising money for the mayor's race ...." MS. PARKER responded it would be 90 days. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON replied he thought it was nine months for a municipal race, and indicated he thought it was state law, not municipal code, that would allow him to begin raising money nine months prior to the mayor's race. MS. PARKER responded, "(Indisc.) be able to answer that question better than I can." Number 0712 BROOKE MILES, Administrator, Juneau Branch Office, Alaska Public Offices Commission, Department of Administration, stated Representative Elton was correct; a municipal candidate may begin to raise funds under the current campaign disclosure law nine months before the date of the election. She stated under current law, a seated legislator was not permitted to accept campaign contributions during the legislative or special session, regardless of the race in which he or she was running. Under the proposed changes, a seated legislator would be able to accept campaign contributions for municipal office during the legislature's regular or special session. Number 0760 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated, "This opens the door a lot wider." He noted the Anchorage municipal races now being conducted in April, and he said this would allow any legislator to file for borough assembly or mayor in the Municipality of Anchorage, and collect campaign contributions while serving as a seated legislator. Representative Elton gave another hypothetical situation: He is running for mayor of the Municipality of Anchorage and raises money during that campaign. He's allowed to keep $5,000 in a campaign account if he's unsuccessful, and he asked if he could then use that $5,000 in a race for state Senate or state House. MS. MILES responded she believed the commission staff has tried to visualize that scenario under current law and it appears unclear. At this point, her answer would be "probably yes." REPRESENTATIVE ELTON commented he thought this bill started out to accomplish one thing, and was creating a "bubble" in another area. He said, "That bubble bothers me because if - if we're operating under the premise that you shouldn't collect money while you're seated in session, I mean that should apply not to just (indisc.) collecting for state office but it should apply to a -- especially if you're a legislator and I'm soliciting money for a run at mayor, ... somebody is gonna think, 'Well, I give it to him because he's going to be mayor, or I give it to him because he's still going to be in the legislature.' And I think that creates a problem that we ... now do not have and that bothers me." He noted he did not have language and said legal would probably have to consider that issue. Number 0883 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON gave the scenario of someone running for mayor who raised a bunch of money and decided to switch. Representative Dyson asked if money that was raised for a mayoral race could be applied to a different race if the candidate decided to drop out. MS. MILES responded $5,000 of that money could be retained to run for future office. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated, in follow-up to Representative Elton's question, "The person who wants to make a contribution, and also wants a favorable vote, you know, I think we're back in the same sort of thing. We don't want the ... fact or the appearance of contributions influencing votes -- I suspect is the motivation we're ..." CHAIR JAMES stated on that point, she just had to say this whole issue of campaign finance reform revolted her. She noted the ethics, the open meetings, and the way they did everything because they didn't want anybody to think a certain way. She said she felt the solution was full disclosure. She stated, "Fact is, if the problem in this bill is for fairness, which I believe that is what it's striving for is fairness, because certainly the system we have currently is not fair, then the thing to do would be take away the unfairness and that is to - to go up instead of going down and making restrictions. Quite frankly, I could solve the problem very simply, to say that anyone who is running for governor or lieutenant governor has no restrictions, and we solve the whole problem in one (indisc.)." She recommended a regular, weekly disclosure of all funds and so forth. She said to let people decide with their vote if they didn't like what someone was doing, noting that seemed the fair way to do it. Number 1052 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ stated he agreed completely and had asked for an amendment to do exactly that, to switch it around so that it was opened up entirely, but it had not arrived. He referred to Mr. Ross's concerns and asked for Ms. Parker's response. MS. PARKER stated she understood Mr. Ross's concerns, but it was a policy decision and she did not really have a personal opinion. She said that Senator Miller has talked with Mr. Ross and understands Mr. Ross's concerns, but feels it has to be fair for everyone. She stated she thought the sponsor might have a problem with opening the bill up for only the governor and lieutenant governor races. If the legislature wanted to open it up for anyone running for state office, and have weekly reporting, she would have to discuss that possibility with Senator Miller. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that there was a difference between a House or Senate race, which are for relatively confined areas with relatively limited budgets, in comparison to a statewide race. He noted that just the logistics were quite different, mentioning the necessity of flying places and setting up organizations. He said a candidate would need the access money could provide. Number 1173 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON commented Chair James and Representative Berkowitz would be greatly comforted to know that the "paragon of Alaskan campaign ethics," Bill McKenkie (ph) agreed with them. Representative Dyson said Mr. McKenkie's (ph) exact words were, "The election process in America is so precious, we are to do almost nothing to mess with it, and the only thing we need to do is have everything (indisc.) the daylight, as in full disclosure." Number 1243 WAYNE ROSS testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He stated he was a "Republican National Committee man" and a candidate for governor of Alaska. Mr. Ross stated the legislature passed the "so-called campaign reform laws" a year or two ago and they had studied those laws very carefully before he decided to run for governor. He said those laws make it very difficult for a person who is not a politician, and not rich, to raise sufficient money to get the message out statewide. Mr. Ross stated, "Nonetheless, as a result of studying those, I felt that a viable campaign ... could be made, and we've attempted to play by the rules that were in effect when we made that decision and we've made commitments after becoming a candidate. Now if you run for statewide office you have to set up organizations in many areas of the state. ... We've made commitments in most of the major areas of the state, we have established organizations that are in the process of raising funds that have set up events to raise funds, we have made travel commitments. I have a finance and campaign chairman to get those things running, and to keep them running, we, of course, need to raise funds." MR. ROSS stated the main purpose of raising funds was to get the message to the people of the state. He noted they presently have fund-raising letters out and he commented that the legislature was entirely within its rights and duties to determine the campaign laws, but he felt changing the laws mid-campaign was "pretty outrageous." He noted the sponsor statement said, "This change will help level the playing field among candidates and will make the system more fair and equitable for all candidates seeking public office in Alaska." Mr. Ross stated it is not more fair and equitable for all candidates if the change takes effect immediately. Number 1380 MR. ROSS noted there were four major candidates currently running for governor: current-Governor Knowles, Mr. Lindauer, Senator Robin Taylor, and himself. He commented on Governor Knowles' possession of funds put together before the first campaign reform laws and the Governor's public exposure. He referred to Mr. Lindauer who, Mr. Ross said, has indicated he is using personal funds to run his campaign and is not fund-raising. Mr. Ross referred to Senator Taylor, who was aware of the rules which did not allow him to raise funds "till he got out of the legislature" when he decided to run, but who decided to run while retaining his Senate seat and who, Mr. Ross said, has made the most of his seat by getting public exposure. Mr. Ross then referred to himself, stating he was not a rich man; he said he is out raising funds to attempt to get his message across and he is the person who would be adversely affected by the immediate effect of this bill. He would have to cancel many planned events, and, with fund-raising letters out, was he supposed to send all the money back which came before the legislature got out of session? He said he has contributors who have committed to sending him small amounts each month. Is he supposed to send those contributions back? He asked how he was supposed to fulfill the financial commitments he has already made when, in effect, the legislature shuts them down on fund-raising. He said he believes this bill was directed principally at his campaign because "certain people saw it catching fire." Number 1498 MR. ROSS commented that SB 275 was a "rich man's bill," which only allowed those candidates who have money themselves and do not have to fund-raise, to continue to run a campaign. He stated he believes it is very unfair and that the "good old boy network," or "good old boy and good old girl network," was at work here. He strongly urged that, if this bill was passed, the effective date be changed to next year. Number 1542 AL J. TURINSKY, JR. testified next via teleconference from Glennallen. Due to teleconference difficulties, Mr. Turinsky's full testimony was not received and the portion recorded was almost inaudible. The Glennallen Legislative Information Office faxed Mr. Turinsky's written statement to the committee. Mr. Turinsky's testimony read: It is my understanding that the stated intention of SB 275 is to level the playing field in races for the Governor's and Lt. Governor's office and to bring the APOC rules for these races in line with the current rules for house and senate races. This bill fails to do that. A gubernatorial race is not the same ball game as a house or senate race. In a statewide race there are many times the number of people a candidate has to reach. The geographic area to be covered is enormous. When these factors alone are considered, rules are not being made comparable with house and senate race rules, they are reducing statewide races to a highschool student counsel race. The restrictions placed on candidates for statewide office under the new APOC rules have already seriously hampered the ability of candidates to get their message out. We live in the real world. And in the real world it costs more money to run a statewide race than it does to run a house or senate race. And it takes more time to raise that money. The legislature recognized this for one brief moment when it allowed a candidate to make a personal loan to his or her own campaign. There is one amount for house candidates, a larger amount for senate candidates, and an even larger amount for statewide office candidates. The rule proposed by this bill is not consistent with the existing personal loan rule. The people of Alaska have a right to make an INFORMED decision about who their vote should go to. We can't do that if candidates can't inform us of their position on important issues. This bill says the offices of the Governor and Lt. Governor aren't very important. This bill says the voters of Alaska don't need to know very much about the candidates for Governor and Lt. Governor. And this bill is nothing more than an economic infringement on the right to free speech. SB 275 passed the Senate by a unanimous vote. What is wrong with this picture? You can't put 20 senators in a room and get them to agree on the color of sugar. The only conclusion I can come to is that deals were made for political expedience. Madame chairman and members of this committee, I don't like deals being made with my vote. So I urge each and every one of you to vote against this bill. Thank you for your time. CHAIR JAMES concluded the public hearing on CSSB 275(STA) for that meeting, noting Representative Berkowitz had an amendment. Number 1667 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved Amendment 1. He said he did it somewhat apologetically because he had not had a chance to examine the amendment completely, but his request had been to craft language which opened up the process rather than constricted it, limited to the governor and lieutenant governor. Number 1697 CHAIR JAMES stated the amendment was before the committee. She said she had been working with the sponsor, and he would like to have the committee hold the bill until Thursday (February 26, 1998). Chair James stated she would like to hold it over with this amendment and see what other arrangements they could make. Number 1705 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made an objection to Amendment 1 for the purpose of keeping it before the committee. Number 1717 CHAIR JAMES stated the committee would hold CSSB 275(STA) with the amendment over until Thursday's calendar.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|