Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 106
03/16/2006 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB290 | |
| HB438 | |
| HB45 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 290 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 438 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 45 | ||
HB 45-CONTRIBUTIONS, LOBBYISTS, DISCLOSURE 9:49:00 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that the last order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 45, "An Act amending the definition of the term 'lobbyist' in the Regulation of Lobbying Act; and providing for an effective date." 9:49:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE BRUCE WEYHRAUCH, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 45, as sponsor. He noted that the bill is substantially similar to an initiative that will be on the ballot August 2006, with some differences. 9:50:24 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS), Version 24-LS0312\F, Wayne, 3/10/06, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version F was before the committee. 9:50:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said [Version F] would tighten recording requirements, effecting the amount of contributions that must be reported, and would reduce the number of hours that someone must register as a lobbyist from 40, back to 10. In response to a question from Chair Seaton, he identified the differences between the initiative and the bill. First, he said that the initiative has an effective date of 2005, while the proposed bill has an effective date of 2007. Next, he referred to page 2, beginning on line 20, which is language defining the meaning of "lobbyist", which read as follows: (B) engages in the influencing of legislative or administrative action as a business, occupation, or profession. REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH noted that the original language of the initiative read: "represents oneself as engaging in the influence". He said that language presents problems to the Alaska Public Office Commission (APOC) because many times there are lobbyists who do not represent themselves as engaging in the practice of lobbying - they don't identify themselves. Representative Weyhrauch stated that the language in Version F is "a clear distinction and a better definition for purposes of ... administering the law." REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH indicated that adopting HB 45 would mean not allowing the initiative on the ballot. He said he respects Representative Harry Crawford, the sponsor of the initiative, and they have agreed to disagree. He stated, "I don't like the idea that ... the legislature goes back and changes something once you adopt it, simply to be tricky about getting an initiative off the ballot, so I would absolutely oppose, as an official in the legislature, any changes to this once we do it." 9:53:07 AM CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that an initiative that is adopted cannot be changed for two years, but a law can be changed after one year, and Representative Weyhrauch is saying it is not his intent to change the law any sooner than if the initiative had passed. 9:53:24 AM REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH confirmed that is correct. 9:54:13 AM REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH, in response to a request for clarification from Representative Elkins, explained his previous comments regarding page 2, line 20. 9:54:41 AM REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS said he thinks some of the community delegations that come to Juneau spend more than 10 hours [lobbying] in a 30-day period. REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said that is a policy distinction in the bill that is up for debate. 9:55:20 AM CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that the hours counted towards lobbying have to do with active meeting time with legislators, excluding any public testimony. 9:55:35 AM REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS reiterated that a recent delegation from Ketchikan spent more than 10 hours. 9:55:47 AM REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said historically people have to register as lobbyists and fill out a form. 9:56:02 AM CHAIR SEATON echoed Representative Weyhrauch's statement that it will be the policy call of the committee to decide the time limit. 9:56:18 AM REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said he thinks the rule before was four hours in a 30-day period, so the proposed legislation is more of a relaxed standard than it historically was. 9:56:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER brought attention to the difference between [subparagraphs (A) and (B), in paragraph (10)] of Section 4. She said [subparagraph (B), text provided previously] relates to lobbyists who do their work as a "business, occupation, or profession." [Subparagraph (A)], she said, "is when they do it for payment." [Subparagraph (A) read as follows:] (A) is employed and receives payments, or who contracts for economic consideration, including reimbursement for reasonable travel and living expenses, to communicate directly or through the person's agents with any public official for the purpose of influencing legislation or administrative action for more than 10 hours in any 30-day period in one calendar year; or REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said, "So, a citizen who comes down to lobby, or somebody who is a teacher who comes down to lobby for education, is not doing it as part of their profession, business, or occupation; they're citizens lobbying for something, and they wouldn't have to register as lobbyists." 9:56:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH suggested that the committee obtain the input of the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC). 9:57:21 AM BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), stated that the commission has a neutral position regarding HB 45. Furthermore, she said that if HB 45 passes, it will have no fiscal impact on APOC. 9:58:35 AM MS. MILES, in response to a question from Representative Gardner, stated that elected or appointed municipal officials or employees are exempt from the lobbying law; they never are required to register and report. Individuals hired to represent a municipality are required to register and report the payment amount. 9:59:55 AM MS. MILES, in response to a question from Chair Seaton, stated that when employee lobbyists come to Juneau to testify, "under this law they would be subject to the 10-hour test." 10:00:20 AM CHAIR SEATON asked if that applies to a fisherman who is self- employed and lobbies on his own behalf regarding a fishing bill. 10:00:46 AM MS. MILES responded that an individual who is the sole proprietor of a business or a closely held corporation whose only officers are married partners, for example, has not in the past been required to register and report as a lobbyist. She proffered: You have a good example with Mr. Myrl Thompson, this year and last year, who covers all of ... [his] own expenses to be in Juneau and works with the process, and testifies, and frequently would ask for meetings with legislators or staff in efforts to influence legislative action. But no one is paying ... [him]. That's how we see the person who's representing her or his own business. MS. MILES, in response to a follow-up question, said Mr. Thompson is not considered a lobbyist and, thus, does not have to register, because he is not receiving payments from a third party. CHAIR SEATON asked if that is clear in statute. MS MILES answered, "It is in the exemptions section of the statute, which is not part of this bill. But it is clear and has been part of that statute since 1976." 10:02:36 AM CHAIR SEATON asked if Ms. Miles if she had any other suggestions for changes that need to be made to avoid confusion. 10:02:45 AM MS. MILES answered no. For the committee's information, she noted that there is another type of lobbyist called a representational lobbyist. She said, "That can cover a person who is not employed by or under contract for a fee by the entity that she or he is attempting to influence legislative action on, but the entity covers their expenses." She said those individuals are required to file a registration and make public that they are there representing another party, but they are not required to file lobbyist reports and are not subject to the restrictions on fundraising and participating in the political process that paid lobbyists are, because they are not really considered to be paid. The person, company, or entity that reimburses this person's expenses files a quarterly report disclosing all expenses connected with the person's activity. Those expenses, she indicated, are limited to accommodations, food, beverage, and travel. In response to Chair Seaton, she said APOC thinks "it does provide a good protection for an individual who participates almost as a volunteer with just having their expenses covered in whole or in part, while still giving the public the right to know who those people are who are attempting to influence the public decision makers." 10:04:31 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if allowing someone [who has come to Juneau to lobby] to use a spare bedroom would be considered compensation. 10:05:05 AM MS. MILES clarified, "The payment must come from the entity for which the person is trying to influence the legislative action." She offered her understanding that Representative Gatto's example would be called a close economic association with a lobbyist if the lobbyist was paid to come to town. She added, "If it were a citizen lobbyist who comes to town, and you permitted them to stay in your spare bedroom - although I can't speak to the Legislative Ethics Law - it wouldn't be considered compensation to the lobbyist." 10:05:43 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she wants to clarify that Ms. Miles is saying that if she owns a small business and comes to Juneau specifically to lobby for legislation that may effect that business, she would not have to register as a lobbyist; however, if she were to send a paid employee to do the same on her behalf, that employee would have to register as a lobbyist. 10:06:04 AM MS. MILES answered yes, if that employee has met the 10-hour test. 10:06:10 AM CHAIR SEATON referred to Section 1, [subsection (b), which read as follows]: (b) Each group shall make a full report upon a form prescribed by the commission, listing CHAIR SEATON noted that one of the items reported would be "contributions in excess of $100". He asked if this means campaign contributions and, if so, if the contribution limit and the reporting requirement apply to individual political campaigns." 10:06:34 AM MS. MILES outlined that Section 1 addresses reports by political groups, which includes political parties and all varieties of political action committees. She continued: Before changes to the campaign disclosure law in 2003, all campaign contributions that were received from a contributor that were $100 or less were not identified by name and address, but simply batched together on each report. ... After the changes in 2003, each contributor, regardless of the amount, was required to be shown by name and address. In Section 1, this reverses that ruling for groups only, not for candidates. And in a way this would be helpful to the commission, because one of the results of that change in law - particularly with group activity, and particularly with the groups that operate on payroll, withholding, [and] check-off programs, such as labor unions and some corporations - is that ... we're getting these reports that can be 300-500 pages, ... showing weekly or biweekly 75-cent contributions from the same individual, which as you can imagine, requires a lot of staff time to enter data into our database, making the information available to the public. So, this would actually be helpful to the commission. 10:08:43 AM MS. MILES, in response to a request for clarification from Chair Seaton, said this change in law would not affect the requirement that each candidate provide a name and address for each contribution. She added, "It is the same as the initiative." 10:09:38 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that HB 45 was heard and held.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|