Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 106
01/25/2005 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Department of Administration, Division of Personnel | |
| HB21 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 21-POLITICAL ADVERTISING 9:04:22 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 21, "An Act relating to false statements in state election advertising; and providing for an effective date." REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to adopt HB 21 as the working document. There being no objection, HB 21 was before the committee. 9:04:50 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor of HB 21, said the bill is coined the "liars' bill." He said the moral intention of the bill is excellent, but trying to prove it is the challenge. He said it can be shown that people do cross the line [regarding making false statements during campaigns]. 9:06:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said there are three options to counter an attack of false statements: to counter with a similar type of attack; to spend a considerable amount in defense against the falsehood; and to file a complaint to the court system. He said he hopes that HB 21 will provide a simpler method by allowing a person to file a complaint with the Alaska Public Office Commission (APOC). A person would use a simple form and provide proof that the statement is false, and APOC, under an expedited review, would be able to dispute the [false] advertisement and force it to be discontinued and would have the authority to fine the offending campaign or individual. He said the purpose of HB 21 is to ensure that the standards for truth in advertising would apply to political campaigns, just as they do in regard to buying commercial products or service. 9:08:48 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS talked about a 1994 gubernatorial campaign when someone was charged with domestic violence - a charge which was later proven to be unfounded. He offered further examples. He said the result of false accusations is that good people are backing away from the process to protect their integrity. 9:12:15 AM CHAIR SEATON let the committee know that his intent was not to move HB 21 from committee today. 9:12:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she applauds Representative Ramras's intent. She described a scenario in which a private citizen may speak on the radio, not in the form of paid advertising. 9:13:14 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said that issue has been considered. He indicated that a person speaking on his own behalf via public radio [has that right through] the First Amendment. He said he thinks adding the word "paid" to the bill might clean up the process. 9:13:56 AM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN applauded the purpose of bill. He asked if the bill differentiates between a purposeful lie versus a situation where someone failed to check readily available facts. He suggested it's the difference between a lie and being incompetent. He offered an example where he had been accused of being absent during contentious votes. He said anybody could check the House journal to find out that wasn't true. He said, "It's like debating what's the capital of North Dakota when you can look at a map." He said responding to that may have given wings to the lie and probably would have caused more damaged than he suffered. He questioned whether he suffered damage, since he was reelected. 9:16:07 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said Representative Lynn's example is relevant. He said he thinks it would be beneficial to use APOC as a referee, of sorts. He concurred that if a person chooses to respond to false accusations, that person may dignify the act. 9:17:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS, in response to a question from Representative Elkins regarding whether the bill had been checked for constitutionality, said the bill was shown to Legislative Legal and Research Services, and he said his recollection is that there is a law like this in the State of Washington. Representative Ramras reiterated that First Amendment rights are a concern. He noted that Representative Bruce Weyhrauch suggested there could be language added, like the previously mentioned word "paid." He said he would leave it to the committee to decide. 9:19:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if it was practical or even possible for APOC to do an adequate investigation in just a few days. 9:20:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said he thinks the committee should hear from APOC on that issue. 9:20:37 AM CHAIR SEATON turned to page 1 of the bill [lines 5-7], which read as follows: Sec. 15.13.092. False statements in election advertising. (a) A person may not make a false statement in election advertising with knowledge that the statement is false or with a reckless disregard for whether or not the statement is false. CHAIR SEATON said he interpreted the language as only referring to a situation in which someone knows that a statement is false. 9:21:45 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said he thinks that's true. He said the intent of HB 21 is to protect someone like Representative Lynn, where the person who made the accusations could have know they were false by looking at the records. 9:27:56 AM CHAIR SEATON mentioned an incident during a Senate race when a person was accused of "inadequate residency." He indicated that being able to say whether a person is a resident is a legitimate issue and a determination from APOC may take that issue off the table when it's perfectly legitimate. He said challengers may have a hard time if the intent is that they only talk about themselves. 9:29:08 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO presented a possible scenario wherein an opponent brags about his/her abilities as a candidate, but someone may question his background in areas related to driving under the influence or pedophilia and want that investigated. 9:29:57 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said Representative Gatto's point is well taken; however, he turned back to Representative Lynn's previously stated example and asked how a person defends against that. 9:31:32 AM REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS referred to Representative Gatto's previously stated scenario. He said, "What if that statement was made in a radio interview and somehow then it was picked up by the press and printed in the press. It's not advertising, it's not true, but it's there. 9:31:51 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said, "Then I think you have an entirely different problem. He said he thinks there's a difference between regular discourse in an interview and purposely sitting down to write a campaign advertisement that is intentionally false. 9:32:48 AM CHAIR SEATON referred to the following language in subsection (c): (c) If the person who disseminates the false statement is not the maker of the false statement, the person who disseminates the statement violates (a) of this section only if the person had actual knowledge that the statement was false before disseminating the statement. CHAIR SEATON said residency, in regard to where a person will file, is loosely interpreted by the court. He asked if that language would preclude someone talking about someone's residency. 9:34:07 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said he is not an attorney and doesn't know how someone would specifically interpret the language. He invited the committee to tighten up the language of the proposed legislation. He restated the intent of HB 21. 9:36:02 AM CHAIR SEATON said it is incumbent upon the committee to consider what would and would not be acceptable with the outline of the proposed legislation. He agreed that it will be a balancing act [to figure it out]. 9:37:03 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the policy against expanding liable and slander causes of action is in accord with a long line of U.S. Supreme Court and state supreme court cases. He suggested HB 21 runs counter to that trend. 9:38:38 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said he doesn't know. 9:38:46 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG shared an anecdote about his dog that had been alive and prominently displayed in his campaign photo when the photo was taken, but died shortly thereafter. He asked if that would be considered an actionable lie. 9:40:41 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON paraphrased from [AS] 15.13.380, [subsection (d), paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), included in the committee packet], which read: (d) If the commission expedites consideration, the commission shall hold a hearing on the complaint within two days after granting expedited consideration. Not later than one day after affording the respondent notice and an opportunity to be heard, the commission shall (1) enter an emergency order requiring the violation to be ceased or to be remedied and assess civil penalties under AS 15.13.390 if the commission finds that the respondent has engaged in or is about to engage in an act or practice that constitutes or will constitute a violation of this chapter or a regulation adopted under this chapter; (2) enter an emergency order dismissing the complaint if the commission finds that the respondent has not or is not about to engage in an act or practice that constitutes or will constitute a violation of this chapter or a regulation adopted under this chapter; or (3) remand the complaint to the executive director of the commission for consideration by the commission on a regular rather than an expedited basis. 9:41:34 AM CHAIR SEATON asked how disruptive this process would be to a candidate during his/her campaign. 9:42:28 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said he thinks it would be very disruptive, which is the intent of HB 21. He noted that each election cycle is worse than the last one. He offered examples. He questioned who will want to participate in the future. Representative Ramras said it seems like this issue is right for the House State Affairs Standing Committee. 9:46:33 AM CHAIR SEATON directed attention to [AS 15.13.380, subsection (g)], which read: (g) A commission order under (d) or (e) of this section may be appealed to the superior court by either the complainant or respondent within 30 days in accordance with the Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure. CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that that process would hold in abeyance any order from APOC, until the appeal process was complete. He explained that he is considering the timeline of the process and would like feedback from APOC. 9:48:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER commented that the steps to proceeding with a suit include showing that the information is false. She asked, "What about showing that the person knew it was false?" Representative Gardner indicated that the legislation refers to a person who presents false information, and she noted that there have been times when organizations "do misleading or intentionally false things." She offered examples. 9:49:24 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER suggested that the proposed legislation could be used adversely. For example, if a political race was close, one candidate could submit a report of falsehood against his/her opponent, thereby pulling that opponent away to go deal with the complaint. 9:49:48 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said Representative Gardner brings up some interesting points. However, in the interest of time, he did not respond to them. He emphasized that the issue surrounding HB 21 is an important one and he encouraged the committee to work on changing any language to "clean up the process." 9:50:36 AM BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), said it is difficult to determine the impact of the bill on APOC, but she is sure it will have impact because of the scope of the bill. She explained that the commission already receives phone calls regarding the content of political advertising, but during its 30-year history has had no authority to address them, with one exception: the requirement through AS 15.13 regarding a "correct identifier." Ms. Miles also noted that the commission has no authority regarding residency; that rests with the Division of Elections. 9:52:40 AM MS. MILES said the commission has not met yet regarding HB 21, but she is speaking on behalf of the staff. She applauded trying to "make campaigns more accountable." She said she has concerns over First Amendment rights, specifically in regard to including ballot proposition advertisements. She noted that "administering the campaign disclosure law, with respect to ballot propositions, is the most lenient." She offered examples. 9:54:07 AM MS. MILES said she looks forward to working on the bill. She recommended that the committee consider that anything more than taking the advertisement off the air and being subject to a $50 fine is not currently in statute. She said she would like committee members to review AS 15.13.095; that Section speaks to false statements in telephone polling or "calls to convince." MS. MILES addressed the commission's complaint process. She offered her understanding that the committee is "looking for this to come before the commission on an expedited basis." She noted that the statute is permissive and requires that when a complaint is filed, the complainant must request expedited consideration, the commission must meet within 48 hours to decide whether or not to expedite the consideration, and the hearing must occur within 48 hours if the complaint is accepted. She continued as follows: Because of that very short time frame, the regulations that the commission has adopted regarding expedited hearings virtually requires that the complainant prosecute her or his own case. And that's simply because, in the time frame, there's not sufficient time for commission staff to conduct an in-depth investigation. However, we are available to assist the complainant with respect to issuing subpoenas and many other administrative assisting skills. MS. MILES, in response to a question from Chair Seaton, said she believes that subpoenas can be served in a time-sensitive manner. 9:57:52 AM MS. MILES, in response to a question from Representative Gruenberg, confirmed that the hearings could extend in the legislative session. However if any party to the complaint was a legislator, the issue would be held in abeyance "until after five days after the legislature adjourns, because of legislative immunity from civil process." In response to a follow-up question from Representative Gruenberg, she said it's her understanding that a legislator cannot waive legislative immunity, even if that legislator wants to participate in a hearing before APOC. She said cases can certainly go for 130 days with no action. 9:59:47 AM CHAIR SEATON reminded the committee that the municipal elections wouldn't be exempt. He asked Ms. Miles if she would provide the committee with an estimated number of complaints received regarding false advertising. [HB 21 was heard and held.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|