Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 106
02/22/2005 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB14 | |
| HB100 | |
| HB62 | |
| HB48 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 14 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 62 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 100 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 48 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 62-AUTOMATED POLITICAL TELEPHONE CALLS 9:14:10 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 62, "An Act relating to prohibiting automated telephone calls for a political advertisement to telephone numbers listed as not wanting telephone solicitations; and providing for an effective date." 9:14:23 AM KONRAD JACKSON, Staff to Representative Kurt Olson, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 62 on behalf of Representative Olson, sponsor. He said HB 62 would prohibit automated political advertising telephone calls to telephone numbers listed in the national "do not call" registry. He clarified that it would not prohibit personal calls by the candidates, parties, volunteers, or paid staff, and it would not limit polling by parties or by candidates. He pointed out that HB 62 had a zero fiscal note. He said, "81,606 Alaskans chose to participate in the national "do not call" registry during the first year of the program. This bill will help reduce the political spam reaching them in the future." 9:15:58 AM CHAIR SEATON remarked that AS 15.13.065 refers to political parties and asked for further explanation regarding how HB 62 would not restrict political parties to conduct polls or other solicitations. MR. JACKSON clarified, "That's just a reference to a definition - a different subsection." He said that the bill is directed specifically at political advertisement; polling by candidates and political parties is not included. 9:17:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE KURT OLSON, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor of HB 62, said that the bill's intent was "to limit it strictly to the calls to people on the [national] "do not call" registry from ... automated machines." REPRESENTATIVE OLSON, in response to a question from Chair Seaton, stated that a political party would not be able to use an automated dialing machine. 9:19:06 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned attention to the language on page 2, beginning on line [8], and ending in the middle of line 11, which read as follows: the purpose of the call is to communicate a message made to convince potential voters concerning the outcome of an election of a candidate or made to influence the outcome of a proposition REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned why the verb "to convince" was used concerning the outcome of an election, but the verb "to influence" was used regarding the outcome of a proposition. He suggested that "influence" would be more appropriate in both cases. He asked, "Was there an attempt to be different in those verbs?" REPRESENTATIVE OLSON said that he would have to defer that question to the drafter. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that he would like to work on that language with the sponsor and his staff. CHAIR SEATON, in response to a comment by Representative Gruenberg, clarified that the intent of bill was to stop messages that would be intended to influence an election. 9:21:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE OLSON commented that in going door-to-door during the last election cycle, the number one complaint he heard was regarding the number of calls received, mostly in the federal elections. He noted that this bill would probably not address the federal elections. 9:21:36 AM REPRESENTATIVE OLSON confirmed that he had intended the bill to be limited to the people who didn't want to receive the calls in the first place; it would not have an impact on those people who are not on the national "do not call" registry. 9:22:32 AM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN remarked that he understands the frustration that people feel, but he said that the phrase "political spam" could be expanded to include radio, television, and mail, as well as phone calls. He commented that this might have a chilling effect on democracy in action and free speech. He stated that he was not sure why the bill covers candidates but not political parties. REPRESENTATIVE OLSON noted that it was not his intent to address anything other than the automatic phone calls. He commented that the word "spam" may have been a bit strong. CHAIR SEATON clarified that the bill includes automated phone calls by whoever makes them, including political parties. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN stated that he understands that the bill does not address mail and television. However, he observed that the principle is almost the same - there is an attempt to communication to as wide a variety of voters as possible. 9:25:18 AM REPRESENTATIVE OLSON, in response to Representative Ramras, stated that this bill would not apply to federal elections, but only to state elections. CHAIR SEATON asked Representative Olson if he had gotten a legal opinion on whether the bill would infringe on free speech. REPRESENTATIVE OLSON said that he had not, but that he would do so. 9:26:09 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like to work on that issue. He stated that his understanding of the national "do not call" registry is that a person cannot separate out whether he/she wants to take only political calls. He suggested there may be people who actually want the political calls. 9:27:18 AM CHAIR SEATON confirmed that the national "do not call" registry is for all unsolicited calls; however it does not apply to political and charitable calls. He said, "As I understand it the intent of this bill is to say that the 'do not call' list is being augmented to say that ... anyone using an automated dialer cannot call someone who's name is on the 'do not call' list." 9:28:08 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that currently, a person is allowed to make an automated call to ask people to come speak out against a certain issue at, for example, a municipal meeting. He asked if the proposed legislation would prohibit that. REPRESENTATIVE OLSON responded, "I don't believe it would." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated his concern is in regard to the language, "notwithstanding the exemption from the definition of telephone solicitation in (g)(4)(B)(iii) of this section", specifically the word, "notwithstanding". He explained that "those are calls limited to soliciting the expression of ideas or opinions." REPRESENTATIVE OLSON said that he is not an attorney and therefore is hesitant to answer the question. 9:29:42 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked if the automated telephone polls would be prohibited under this bill. REPRESENTATIVE OLSON said that it was not the intent of bill to impact polling. He added that a push poll would probably be prohibited since it would be an attempt to influence a person. 9:31:08 AM RANDY RUEDRICH, Chair, Alaska Republican Party, commented that HB 62 is an unfortunate attempt to solve a problem that can't be solved "by ourselves" in Alaska. He said that the bill bans political speech, which is somewhat dangerous, and he opposes the concept. He continued as follows: One of the things we work at very hard in the political process is to encourage our citizens to vote. And the 2004 election was a wonderful example in Alaska of political success. We had a turnout of 66.6 percent of the entire voter roll. When you compare that to '96 and 2000 - the last two presidential elections - we had a 10 percent increase in turnout, from about 60 percent to 66 percent. [It was] very dramatic. And I think the calls, regardless of what you think of them, had a positive impact on bringing voters to the polls. ... The '04 election was unique, and I don't think we're likely to see anything like this occur in the near future. Our candidates for United States Senate spent more than three times as much as has been spent in any recent Alaska election. The major parties spent at least five times what they have spent in prior elections. And the mysterious new federal [Section 527 political groups] spent untold amounts of money. A lot of this money was spent on making phone calls that would be banned by this act, if it were to apply at all, and it does not. These phone calls that were made - many of them were improper since they did not have any federal disclaimer on them. So we have a violation of [an] existing law already. Furthermore, all the calls that were made in conjunction with the federal election are regulated by federal law, and the "do not call" list was explicitly not to be applied based on a federal law passed by Congress a number of years ago. So political free speech is not banned to folks on the "do not call" list. 9:33:41 AM MR. RUEDRICH continued: Advocacy calls are very powerful. But if a candidate, a party, or an interest group abuses that process, the voters can [and] will [respond] - and I think we have examples of where they already have responded - adversely to excessive phone calls. And I trust that the voters will continue to appropriately regulate this process by not rewarding excessive ... calling with a vote; they may be motivated to go vote for the other person. ... Limiting free speech is always dangerous, and I would suggest that if we make this a law today, there's no telling where we will move to tomorrow. So rather than even going in that direction, I urge you to not pass this bill. 9:35:07 AM CHAIR SEATON asked Mr. Ruedrich: Would you consider that if you called a certain segment of voters to get them out to the polls, and yet you were only looking at a targeted segment ... that you thought were going to be voting for a particular candidate or a particular side to a proposition, would that fall under this "potential voters concerning the outcome of an election"? Would that, just in itself - because you're not calling everyone but are targeting a certain group and therefore are intending to increase a vote for a certain proposition or candidate - ... fall under this restriction? MR. RUEDRICH answered affirmatively. 9:36:08 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS commented that one of his favorite inefficiencies of the election cycle was when, in order to put a mailer out to constituents, [candidates] had to fold the letter and put it in an envelope by hand. He asked Mr. Ruedrich to explain why [candidates] have to go through this process rather than using an automated mailer. MR. RUEDRICH responded that under federal law there is a specific allowance for political parties to send mail on behalf of a candidate, but it must be touched by a human doing something that materially affects the successful delivery of the mail. He continued: That does not apply ... to state candidates or state law. And of course the parties can make contributions to candidates; the parties can make independent expenditures on behalf of a candidate, but we cannot do something like the non-allocable mail that is present in federal law. 9:38:01 AM JOE SONNEMAN, Ph.D., stated that he earned a Ph.D. in government and then went on to law school where he was taught that the highest and most protected form of speech is political speech. Nevertheless, he noted, the legislature is allowed to regulate the time, place, and manner of expression. He said: I share the view that's already been expressed by some, both on the committee and others testifying, that this is a difficult area to begin legislating, and may lead to unintended consequences. And I too think that it would be a good idea not to do this as a bill. There was a lot of negative reaction, I think, to the number of calls that occurred during this last election cycle, and I agree also that voters will act appropriately if they dislike the manner in which communications are made. So, to some extent, I think there's self-regulation already that will occur. You can add to that ... without violating free speech principles if this were, instead of a law, ... proposed as a resolution. In other words, you are expressing the sense of the legislature that it was not a good idea to do this. Or perhaps if you had a law that ... directed [the] Division of Elections when a candidate signs up, that they get a notice that says that the legislature recognizes that candidates have a right to communicate in this way, but nevertheless the legislature recommends that candidates be aware that voters may not appreciate such calls.... That might enable you to walk the line in between voter dissatisfaction against automated calls and yet not trying to prohibit them by law. 9:40:39 AM CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony. 9:40:56 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that HB 62 was heard and held.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|