Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/03/1998 08:05 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 413 - INITIATIVE PETITION COMPENSATION Number 0094 CHAIR JAMES announced the next issue up is, HB 413, "An Act relating to disclosure of compensation paid to sponsors of initiative petitions; placing limitations on the compensation that may be paid to sponsors of initiative petitions; and prohibiting payments to persons who sign or refrain from signing initiative petitions." Number 0097 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON presented HB 413, he explained current law on initiative petitions simply requires that groups, that are circulating petitions, circulate the petitions, there's no disclosure requirement at all, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) requires only filings by groups supporting or opposing ballot propositions after they are established on the ballot and not during the circulation period of time. In other words, groups that are circulating petitions only are required to disclose when they seek to influence the outcome of an election and that does not kick into place until after the initiative petition has been certified by the Office of the Lieutenant Governor. Number 0108 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, essentially what we have here is somewhat of a conflict of rights. The right to petition, which of course we don't want to constrain, and the right of people who are being petitioned to know who is circulating the petition. He noted HB 413 addresses that problem. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated there is a growing commercialization. He said the most interesting phenomenon that's occurring in Oregon is there is a list of the top ten petition circulators who were paid ranging from $31,000 to $82,000 a year. It's interesting to note that Julius Sabenorio, who was the highest paid petition circulator, earned $82,457 in a two month period of time. That describes the growing commercialization of the initiative petition process. Number 0120 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON pointed out in Oregon the number of paid circulators working one petition only was 484 and that represented 18 percent of all of the petitions circulated. And we'll assume that they were working that petition because they felt strongly what that petition was trying to accomplish. The number of paid circulators working on more than one petition was 2,236 or 82 percent. He said, "This also indicates that people who are circuiting petitions are not necessarily doing it because they believe in the initiative petition, they're doing it because they're getting paid to circulate the petition." REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated, in Alaska there is only one petition that has been circulated for this general election ballot which was done by non-paid volunteers, that was the "billboard" petition. He pointed out, while they didn't pay for signatures, in some cases there were salaried employees from the environmental community that were helping to circulate those petitions. They weren't being paid for signatures, but some of those petition circulators were salaried employees. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to the "education endowment," he said those petition circulators paid up to seventy-five cents per signature. The "English as the official language" ballot initiative petition started at fifty cents, and went to seventy- five cents per signature, they said they couldn't compete with the education circulators and they needed to raise their price. He noted they went from seventy-five cents up to a dollar later on in the process. Those people who are circulating the petition to "ban the snaring of wolves" paid one dollar per signature at the beginning, they did hire a professional group and are paying more than that now, but we weren't able to determine how much they were paid. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said one of the things that happened in Alaska is those who were responsible for the initiative petition that wanted to create the education endowment had some serious philosophical disagreements with those who were circulating the petitions for the English only as the official language. He said they banned their paid signature people from also carrying the petition and asking for signatures on the English only. Representative Elton said, "That's not an unusual phenomena, paid signature gatherers will often have two, or three, or four petitions because they're getting a dollar per signature, they can increase their income by four if they're carrying four petitions. If they get somebody coming out of a grocery store or coming out a mall, then they can get their signature four times, they're getting four dollars instead of one dollar." He stressed that this is an industry. This is no longer a grassroots effort. These are some of the organizations that will pay people to gather signatures. Number 0152 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON pointed out the bill also says you cannot pay somebody for their signature. For example, you can't say, I'll pay you a dollar if you sign the petition, so that loophole is closed. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON explained this bill also requires that those people who are being solicited for their signature have the right to know who is paying for the paid signature gatherers. That requirement would be disclosed toward the top of the first page in twelve-point bold print in capital letters. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON noted HB 413 would also give the right of the people whose signatures are being solicited to ask how much they're being paid for their signature. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said one of the chief issues, and this is something that has been an issue in other states, is whether or not restriction on payment is constitutional. The issue has been addressed in Colorado. Colorado banned all payment for signatures. He said he believes that case went all the way to the supreme court. The supreme court found you cannot ban paid signature gatherers. Number 0167 CHAIR JAMES asked which court was that. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON replied Meyer v. Grant. He said he believes it went from district court to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did find that you cannot ban payment in the initiative petition arena. He said, "They defined, as they had defined earlier in elections, that money is speech, essentially." But they didn't address the issue of constraining the amount that's paid and it's also important to note that this bill does not ban payment, it only bans one form of payment, and that form of payment being based upon a certain amount of money per signature. Representative Elton explained that a person can still contract with somebody for signatures. For example, they could contract for one hundred dollars to have somebody solicit signatures. The only requirement would be, because this bill does establish that you can't pay more than ten cents a signature, if somebody has a contract for one hundred dollars to gather signatures, they'd have to gather at least a thousand signatures to remain outside of the constraints of this legislation. It also doesn't ban another form of payment for signature gatherers. It doesn't ban salaried employment. The only thing that this does, is it constrains the amount of money that you can pay per signature, but it does not ban other forms of payment for circulating petitions. Number 0182 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON noted other states have addressed this same problem. For example Oregon requires disclosure of payment that the circulator is receiving for soliciting signatures. Maine and Wyoming have an outright ban on paying per signature. You have to use other forms of payment whether its contract or whether it's salary. On the petition that circulators are, or may be paid, Oregon, California and New Jersey have that requirement. Reporting expenditures, which is something that's currently not required in the state of Alaska, reporting expenditures to petition circulators is required in Washington, Colorado, and Wyoming. Other states have begun addressing this problem, they've done it in different forms, so far there has been no challenge to the constitutionality of those types of constraints that other states have used. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he thinks another issue, especially an issue for people who are circulating petitions is, will this bill make it impossible to use the initiative process. Representative Elton said he didn't think so, our history is replete with grassroots efforts to push initiatives on the ballot and they have been successful. And this is a prepaid signature era and also the other example is the (indisc.--coughing) initiative which did not pay for signatures. Number 0198 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said we have to ask ourselves to what extent does the use of paid signature gatherers undercut the initiative process itself. He said he believes signature gatherers, if they are paid, are probably less likely to communicate what the issue is effectively. One of the reasons they might not want to do that is if they have to stop and explain what the initiative petition does, if they take 30 seconds to explain it and five people have already walked by, their imperative is, if they're getting a dollar a signature, to get those five people. So if somebody asks what does this do, they're probably less likely to respond because they're going to miss five other people that are walking by. Number 0207 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON added that people aren't likely to communicate for another reason. For example, a petition signature gatherer was sitting on a garbage can outside of a Brown Jug on New Year's Eve in Anchorage with four petitions. And that person was receiving money for each signature and probably not under the best circumstances. He said that person is probably not going to have a complete understanding of what the education endowment does, he's probably not going to have a good understanding of what the dynamics are in the trapping industry if they're carrying the snare petition for wolves. That person probably doesn't care, all that person cares about is getting the signatures so that they receive the payment. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said the most important question is, do we really want to change the nature of the petition process itself. He said he thinks we've all assumed that the nature of the petition process is if there is a group of disgruntled Alaskans, this is the avenue that they have to circumnavigate legislators like us who are sitting here and maybe not addressing the issues that they think are important. But it's now become an industry and that industry means that it's not necessarily the issue that's important and a broad group of people that share the same interest are not necessarily behind it. Sometimes what's behind it is a group of people or a special interest group that just has a lot of money to finance a petition drive and to get the initiatives on the ballot. He indicated we haven't seen that yet in our state, but we're certainly seeing more of it in California. Those issues aren't brought by a lot of people who are concerned about the issue, they're brought by special interests that happen to have a lot of money to finance a petition drive and get the initiatives on the ballot. Number 0233 CHAIR JAMES said, "You indicated that there's no reporting until such time as an initiative goes on the ballot -- and then the same sponsor. Does this bill do anything about making people who are circulating the petition to report?" REPRESENTATIVE ELTON replied yes, in Section 3 (page 2), the bill requires each petition to include a statement of warning in 12 point capitalized bold type at or near the top of each page, the following language: THIS PETITION MAY BE CIRCULATED BY A PAID SIGNATURE GATHERER OR A VOLUNTEER. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK, AND THE GATHERER MUST DISCLOSE TO YOU, HOW MUCH AND BY WHOM THE GATHERER IS PAID. CHAIR JAMES asked where did the money come from to pay the people and who has contributed to this group. She also asked if that doesn't have to be disclosed. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON gave an example, he said if he was approached by a signature gatherer to sign the billboard petition, if this law were in place, he would have the right to ask the gatherer whether they are getting paid, if they said yes, he would then have the right to ask who was paying them. Number 0248 CHAIR JAMES asked, who contributed to the Center for the Environment to pay the signature gatherers. She added that's not the only example out there, but if there's a group that's put together to gather signatures on an issue, the public needs to have as much information about the initiative process as they do once an initiative is on the ballot. She said she believes people need to know if this group or person put money into that process, and noted it's a political process. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON responded, "I think that's handled in, for example campaigns that we may run for public office. That's handled by saying what can't happen. For example somebody can't give us money that's kind of washed through somebody else. So it's handled in that circumstance as a prohibition against - used somewhat (indisc.) of a term, washing..." Number 0256 CHAIR JAMES interjected the way the campaign finance law is currently written for us, and for any group that is supporting a candidate or a ballot issue, is that corporations, unions and political parties can't contribute money. She said she doesn't think there is a limitation on initiatives. Chair James stressed that she believes the same information of recording should be required for them as well as once the initiative gets to the ballot. She stated she was hoping Representative Elton had something in here that would make them, once they take on this activity and collect money from people, to be able to put an initiative process through, that they have to file and that they also have to report where their money is coming from and how they're spending it. Number 0264 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON agreed, he said that it's a good point and would be amendable to an amendment to accomplish that. He pointed out there are two ways to accomplish that. One is under the APOC rules that govern us. We just prohibit the washing of money. The other way of accomplishing it would be to require APOC to regulate the behavior of groups. For example, if there is an English as the official language group, it would be interesting to know where their funds are coming from, if their funds are coming from another group or a citizen. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stressed this is an important issue. For example in Washington state, the initiative that would have allowed the medicinal use of marijuana under their disclosure laws, he said he believes it was found three-quarters of the money that supported that petition drive was coming from a single individual in California. Representative Elton stated he would be open to an amendment. Number 0276 CHAIR JAMES agreed that it is very important. She said if the "Friends of the Animals" from Connecticut are funding a petition drive, we need to know that and the people who are signing the petition also need to know that. She stated we also need to know where their money is coming from and how they're spending it, particularly when the money is coming from outside of our state and it's not been a grassroots effort in this state to change state law. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "If the only thing that this would require, is if there is a group called 'Alaskans for the fair pursuit of game,' that was funding the anti-snaring initiative petition, that is all that would be required to be disclosed to the signature gatherer, or disclosed on (indisc--noise). And you're right. It doesn't cover whether or not it's the people for the 'ethical treatment of animals' in Connecticut or somebody else." Number 0284 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he appreciates what Representative Elton is trying to do and what he's done. He asked, in your research, have you seen any examples of the paid signature gatherer sharing his bounty with the signature givers. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON replied he hasn't. But there is included in this proposed legislation a prohibition on that kind of behavior. He noted it would be classified as a misdemeanor for the signature gatherer to pay somebody for their signature. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON mentioned he assumed the guy outside the Brown Jug wasn't sharing commodities from the jug with the signature givers. Representative Dyson said, if he's going to stay in this line of work, he needs to increase his capacity for cynicism. He asked, "Has any of the states, that have addressed this in statute, addressed the use of signatures for gathering a petition, for future mailing lists fund-raising efforts." Number 0301 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON replied, clearly those lists have value. He said he can't answer the question on whether or not people have converted the value of those lists by selling them because he doesn't know. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked have other states addressed this in statute. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON responded not to his knowledge. Number 0305 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS noted he would like to see the initiative process put under the same scrutiny that the candidates have - with the expenditures and everything and applauded Representative Elton's request of that. He said he could probably support this if that language was in here to where there's full disclosure including the 30-day reporting. Representative Hodgins said he also believes the public needs to know who is behind these initiatives because it's part of the public process and it's very important that the public has that information. CHAIR JAMES mentioned a petition drive which addressed an issue against something she was doing so she took a copy of the petition and wrote to the people that were on that list to explain her position. Chair James noted that she received lots of responses saying they didn't sign the petition. CHAIR JAMES indicated if you put a petition up in front of somebody, whether they like the idea or not they'll sign it. We need to sieve the process to be sure that something that sounds really good and isn't good, doesn't get put upon the vulnerable. We also need to be cautious to be sure that the public process that we have is a real public process and not a sham. Number 0322 KEN JACOBUS, Representative, Alaskans for a Common Language testified via teleconference on HB 413. He said, "We were one of the sponsors and circulators for the 'official English petition' which has now been certified. I'm opposed to placing a limitation on the payments for initiative signatures. ... Basically our situation with the 'official English' was started by a bill which was filed by Pete Kott in the Legislature several years ago which did not get any action. We then decided we needed to move it along as part of an initiative petition." MR. JACOBUS stated, "What we're talking about here is the right to petition the government, and we believe that the right to petition the government should not be restricted. Reporting may be required, and that's perfectly appropriate, but restrictions on the person's right to participate in the petition process should not be restricted. I presented a written letter [to Representative Elton, March 3, 1998] ... which discusses this matter in detail. But basically, Meyer v. Grant, which is the case cited by the sponsor did hold that it was a violation of the first amendment to prohibit payment for the circulation of an initiative." Number 0332 MR. JACOBUS continued, "What you're doing, by placing a ten cents per limit on the signatures, is also effectively prohibiting the circulation of initiative petitions. An average circulator can average 20 signatures per hour, at ten cents per hour he earns two bucks. You can't hire somebody for that amount to circulate your petitions. The going rate is somewhere between 40 to 50 percent, where there are problems, a dollar an hour -- and this is detailed in my letter. The three to four dollars an hour is set forth in the sponsor's statement, that's real hard to believe. I'd have to verify that to see where that came from. But there's no way that one would be required to pay three or four dollars an hour to a circulator to collect signatures." Number 0338 MR. JACOBUS continued, "What you're trying to do basically here is price-fix it at an unreasonable level. This is no different than legislating than McDonald's may charge ten cents for a 'Big Mac.' That's absolutely unreasonable to place such a limitation on people who circulate initiative petitions. To say that you can do it through salaried employees doesn't solve that because the most effective way to gather signatures quickly is through a piecework method. It's going to cost a lot more to do a petition if you have to do it through salaried employees. And what you're doing here is discriminating against people who want to circulate an initiative petition in the most efficient way by requiring them to pay in the manner which is least efficient. Basically I believe the ten-cent limitation violates Meyer v. Grant. You're just asking for constitutional litigation. I would recommend that this entire bill be defeated. But that something which maybe requires reporting prior to the initiative being certified might be appropriate but this particular approach is not appropriate." Number 0348 CHAIR JAMES said she understands the free enterprise system, the right to free speech, and the right to be paid for your services. She asked, what responsibility do we have to the vulnerable, do we just let everybody fall into whatever pit they can fall in and say, that's their fault? CHAIR JAMES pointed out a lot of petitions indicate that there were people who signed petitions didn't know they did and were distressed that they did. She asked what kind of protection do we have for that happening. Number 0354 MR. JACOBUS responded, "It shouldn't be regulated at the signature gathering stage. I can tell with our petition, we gave our circulators a lot of instruction on how to circulate petitions, what the petition was about and our circulators would answer questions that people might have about the petition. The place that this is controlled though is not at the circulation stage, it's at the election stage. You can't prevent people from voting a mistake without saying that you can't vote. The place where this all falls out is not when you're gathering signatures. It's during the debate prior to the election when people actually vote on the proposition. It's not something that needs to be restricted here." Number 0361 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Jacobus if it were more than ten cents, say a quarter, would that be okay with you. MR. JACOBUS replied no, in order to get somebody to go out in the cold to collect signatures you've got to pay more than twenty-five cents. MR. JACOBUS further explained they originally paid their circulators fifty cents per signature, they went up to seventy-five and had to go up to a dollar. This was a problem circulation because there were adverse weather conditions, they had a short time frame for signature collection, and they had problems with lack of access to certain good signature gathering locations. They also had competition, the anti-wolf snaring people came in, and the National Education Association came in and bid the price up. And the permanent fund dividend came out in the middle of the circulation process which meant people had money and were less likely to want to go to work earning extra money to collect signatures. So you're probably going to be paying a dollar per signature in Alaska. Number 0373 MR. JACOBUS indicated the "wolf people," if they're smart are paying much more than a dollar per signature because they're up against a 30-day deadline. He said the market should control what's being paid for this. The people who agree to circulate petitions should be able to charge whatever they want to charge and the people who are in the business of circulating petitions should be able to pay whatever the market rate is. Mr. Jacobus stated it doesn't work to place some sort of artificial limitation on it. Twenty-five cents will absolutely not work in Alaska and fifty cents probably will not now even work in Alaska. Number 0379 CHAIR JAMES asked, "Are people that are hiring people by the signature, or in any other way, are they required then to - if anyone keeps track so that anyone that's paid more than $600 gets a 1099, or do they put them on the payroll. How does this money ever get taxed?" MR. JACOBUS replied that he can't speak for every company. But there's no withholding, it's an independent contractor relationship. He said he doesn't know what they do about 1099's and doesn't know about reporting. Number 0385 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ mentioned the Center for the Environment people did it for free. He said that seems to him, the true idea behind a citizen initiative, is you get people who really believe in a cause, get the signatures rather than folks that are mercenaries about the signatures they're gathering. MR. JACOBUS responded that's one way of doing it. But the problem in getting volunteers is there is less volunteerism available. He indicated political parties are getting weaker, the bodies and hours that were available for volunteer services are no longer available. People would rather make a contribution of money to support their cause than spend eight hours standing out in sub-zero weather collecting signatures. He said virtually all initiatives are currently done professionally. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "I just got to say, the cynicism that Representative Dyson felt on an earlier issue seems to be catching because I find it hard to believe that there are no ideologues out there to stand around in sub-zero temperatures, or even during the summer when the weather's nice to collect signatures for an issue they believe in." MR. JACOBUS replied there are ideologues who will do that, but the most effective way to do something in a short time is to get contributions from supporters and pay people to collect signatures. He said the U.S. Supreme Court has approved that process. TAPE 98-29, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR JAMES continued, "...will go out and collect signatures, that the signatures on that petition are the people who are even going to vote for it." MR. JACOBUS stated that's true, the purpose of the initiative process is for supporters to place an issue on the ballot. And these supporters can support the petition either by going out and standing on the corner, or by contributing a hundred dollars so that someone else can be hired to go out and stand on the corner. CHAIR JAMES said that isn't one man one vote because if they're willing to pay a hundred dollars for somebody else to get signatures then they're voting several times on this issue. MR. JACOBUS said no, they're not voting on the issue, they're just getting signatures. The important point is whether the issue will be adopted or not and each person gets one vote there. He said, "Getting it on the ballot is crucial of course, but it doesn't get the measure enacted. You've got to get it through the public debate and then through the election. That's where the important decision is made." Number 0012 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY noted if this bill were to become law, it would prohibit paying more than ten cents for a signature. MR. JACOBUS explained, "Apparently unless you did this by having a salaried employee do it, and that's just not efficient to pay somebody an hourly rate for sitting on a garbage can at the Brown Jug with no incentive to collect signatures - with no incentive to do the job. Actually, the guy sitting on the garbage can at the Brown Jug on New Year's Eve really exercised quite a bit of initiative, that guy ought to be congratulated for having a good idea." REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked what is the limit that could be paid a salaried employee. MR. JACOBUS responded there's no limitation as he sees it in the bill. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY indicated, "So if this bill was to become law, you simply change it from piece work to hourly work or monthly work and you go about your business." Number 0024 MR. JACOBUS responded, "While obviously true, but there will probably be litigation over it, but to do it by monthly or hourly will result in the campaign being much more expensive. And that, since there's much more expense involved, results in further restrictions in the individual people's right to petition their government. They're going to have to spend a lot more money to petition their government than they would have to spend under a piecework type approach." REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he thought our constitution had something in it about the right to petition the government, shall not be infringed. Number 0030 MR. JACOBUS responded that's true, that's in the federal and the Alaska constitution. It should be restricted in a least manner possible. He said, "It can be restricted for example by requiring reporting in advance ... we don't have to report prior to the initiative being certified. And there would be nothing wrong with requiring reporting prior to the initiative being certified if the Legislature wanted to do that. But reporting is different from regulating. And I support reporting and disclosure, but I don't support restriction." REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked, if we believe that the right to petition the government shall not be infringed, where do we get the statutory authority to put "warning" on there. MR. JACOBUS stated he also has problems with the warnings. When you're talking about constitutional issues, you can infringe to a certain minor degree so long as there's a compelling interest if it's a fundamental right. But you do have the right to infringe a little bit. He indicated he has problems with the warning, but it may be held that there's a state interest for the warning. He said he doesn't mind the warning which says you can't sign more than once, you can't sign somebody else's name - if you do you're guilty of a Class B misdemeanor. He said even that warning doesn't help because somebody signed their petition "Taco Bell," obviously that got a buck for the signature gatherer, but it wasn't a valid signature. Number 0052 MR. JACOBUS read: "This petition may be circulated by a paid signature gatherer or a volunteer, you have the right to ask, and the gatherer must disclose to you, how much and by whom the gatherer is paid." He said he has some problems with that because it interferes with the right of privacy of the gatherer. He's going to have to disclose his compensation to a member of the public and most other people, other than public officers, don't have to disclose their salary when anybody asks. MR. JACOBUS concluded you have authority to place certain limitations on the process and the warning may be within the authority of the Legislature to enact. He reiterated that he has problems with it but would not strongly object to the warning. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked what is the purpose of this proposed legislation. Number 0062 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON explained the point is to ensure that the initiative petition process is exactly as we envision it that it's a grassroots process, and it's not a process that's simply available to any interest that has a lot of money. He also pointed out the purpose is to constrain the petition process to those people who feel strongly about an issue and who don't feel that issue is being addressed by the Legislature and who have enough supporters in the jurisdiction, in this case the state, to get it on the ballot and to constrain the ability of a special interest group that simply has a lot of money to get on the general election ballot. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said we're talking about first amendment issues and it's important to recognize it. It's not an absolute right in the first amendment. It's subject to reasonable time, place, and manner of restrictions. He said the question we have to ask is this a reasonable thing to do. When we're moving in favor of full disclosure and the purity of the political process is involved, which it is here, then this is an eminently reasonable step to take. Number 0078 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON noted some interesting issues have come up subsequent to his opening statement. The first is whether or not we can restrict a constitutional right to petition. He said the simplest answer to that is we already do it, we assign a certain number of signatures that must be gathered before the petition goes on the ballot, so right there is a significant constraint on how you petition government. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON pointed out that in some cases volunteerism declines because there aren't enough people out there that want to volunteer to do the activity that is being requested. For example, in Juneau, including a lot of communities in Alaska, we have a lot of people that man the Salvation Army Kettles during Christmas. They get a lot of people to do that simply because there are a lot of people who believe in doing that. So, it's less a question of volunteerism declining than it is a question of zeal that people may have for different issues. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON read the following excerpt from the Salem Statesman Journal, 3/30/97, An out-of-state petitioner earns big bucks in Oregon, which describes the business of signature gathering more succinctly. Julius Sabenorio was working in Vancouver, Washington, last year, collecting signatures on a petition drive, when he heard that the real money was in Oregon, So he headed south to Portland where he hooked Oregon Taxpayers United, the group that was mounting an initiative to cut and cap property taxes. Two months later, Sabenorio had paid a total of $82,457 for collecting signatures on that initiative and seven others, according to records in the secretary of state's office. Sabenorio said, "It was a lot of money; there was easy money to be made out there, believe me." REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said that is the kind of situation that this bill is attempting to address and attempting to constrain. He stated that he would prepare an amendment to change the APOC rules to address the full disclosure. Number 0101 CHAIR JAMES said she would like to assign HB 413 to a subcommittee. She appointed herself and Representatives Berkowitz, and Elton to the subcommittee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|