Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
02/01/2022 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
HB245 | |
HB234 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
*+ | HB 245 | TELECONFERENCED | |
*+ | HB 234 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 234-POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION LIMITS 3:35:50 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 234, "An Act relating to political contributions; and providing for an effective date." 3:36:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor, introduced HB 234. 3:36:29 PM The committee took a brief at-ease. 3:36:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 234, labeled 32-LS119\I, Bullard, 1/22/22, as the working document. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion. 3:37:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE presented the sponsor statement [included in the committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: House Bill 234 updates Alaska's political donations limits and requires the Alaska Public Offices Commission to increase these limits every ten years based on Alaska's consumer inflation rates. th Last year, the 9 Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the statutory campaign finance contribution limits in the Thompson vs Hebdon decision. Alaska has long touted strong and effective campaign finance laws and regulations which have helped to reduce perception and acts of quid pro quo and corruption in our electoral process. These regulations have served to promote better accountability and trust in our election system and elected officials. This ruling created legal uncertainty over political contribution limits which have not been updated since the 2006 citizen's initiative. HB 234 seeks to bring the newly struck down contribution limit laws into th compliance with the ruling of the 9 Circuit Court of Appeals and ensure limits moving forward are in line with this ruling. To accomplish this, HB 234 would double the current statutory contribution limits made to group entities, non-group entities, and candidates who seek to influence state or local elections. For example, a candidate could now accept $1,000 per calendar year from an individual as opposed to the existing statutory $500 individual contribution limit struck th down by the 9 Circuit Court of Appeals. HB 234 directs the Alaska Public Office Commission to adjust all contribution limits for inflation every 10 years, rounding them to the nearest $50 increment. This statutory change helps to ensure donation limits remain in compliance with the Thompson v Hebdon decision in perpetuity. 3:39:00 PM ERIK GUNDERSON, Staff, Representative Calvin Schrage, Alaska State Legislature, provided a PowerPoint presentation, titled HB 234 Political Contribution Limits [hard copy included in the committee packet], on behalf of Representative Schrage, prime sponsor. He began on slides 2, titled History of Alaskas political Contribution Limits, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: 1974 to 1995 ? Statutory individual contribution limit: $1,000 ? 1975 Contribution limit adjusted for inflation: $4,725 ? 1995 Contribution limit adjusted for inflation: $1,708 1996 ? Citizens' Initiative reduced individual contribution limit to $500 ? 1996 Contribution limit adjusted for inflation: $831 2003 ? Legislature passed SB 119, increasing the individual contribution limits back to $1,000 ? 2003 contribution limit adjusted to inflation: $1,460 MR. GUNDERSON continued to summarize the history of Alaskas political contribution limits on slide 3, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: 2006 Alaska Campaign Finance Reform Initiative ? Passed overwhelmingly with 73% support Decreased the amounts: ? an individual may give a candidate or group from $1,000 to $500 ? 2006 individual limit adjusted for inflation: $669 ? an individual may give a political party from $10,000 to $5,000 ? a group may give a candidate or other group from $2,000 to $1,000 ? a group may give a political party from $4,000 to $1,000 3:41:59 PM MR. GUNDERSON glossed over slide 4 and continued to slide 5, titled Thompson v. Hebdon (2019), which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Background: ? Plaintiffs sued challenging Alaska's political contribution and out-of-state limits that an individual can contribute to a candidate for political office, or to an election-oriented group other than a political party, as infringement under the First Amendment. ? The District Court and Ninth Circuit initially upheld the individual limits as a "sufficiently important state interest" and "closely drawn" to that end but ruled the out-of-state contribution limits were unconstitutional. ? The U.S. Supreme Court remanded this decision back to the Ninth Circuit to reconsider upholding Alaska's contribution limits, citing Randall v. Sorrel (2006) which ruled Vermont's $400 contribution limit unconstitutional. ? The Ninth Circuit then struck down Alaska's statutory political contribution limits citing that they were too low and had not been adjusted for inflation since initially implemented. 3:43:23 PM MR. GUNDERSON advanced to slide 6, titled Where we are now, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: ? The Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) has issued an advisory opinion under AS 15.13.374 enforce $1,500 individual and $3,000 no political party group contribution limits. ? APOC advisory opinion limits are based on the 2003 legislative political contribution limits increased for inflation. ? Uncertainty remains as to whether the contribution limits enacted in APOC's advisory opinion are valid and if they have the authority to set these limits. These limits have yet to be adopted by APOC's five commissioners and could be changed or rejected. ? The only way to ensure that contribution limits are known and enforceable is for the Alaska Legislature to act and implement statutory limits that will be upheld by the court system. 3:44:30 PM MR. GUNDERSON proceeded to slide 7, titled HB 234 Overview, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: ? Brings Alaska's political contribution limits in accordance with the Thompson v Hebdon (2019) decision which struck down Alaska's existing statutory limits. ? Doubles existing statutory campaign contribution limits with the exception of donations to political parties (example: an individual could donate $1,000 to a candidate instead of the statutory $500 limit). ? Requires the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) to update political contribution limits every ten years based on inflation, rounded to the nearest $50 increment. MR. GUNDERSON briefly addressed slide 8, which provided a comparison of the statutory limits, the APOC advisory opinion, and the limits proposed in HB 234. He noted that the limits outlined in HB 234 would fall in in between the statutory limits and the APOC advisory opinion. 3:45:35 PM MR. GUNDERSON presented the sectional analysis of HB 234 beginning on slide 9, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 1 Amends AS 15.13.070(b) to change the limit an individual may contribute per year to a non-group entity with the purpose of influencing an election, candidate, write-in candidate, or group that is not a political party from $500 to $1,000. Section 2 Amends AS 15.13.070(c) to change the limit a non- political party group may contribute per year to a candidate, write-in candidate, another group, non- group entity, or political party from $1,000 to $2,000. Section 3 Amends AS 15.13.070(f) to change the limit a nongroup entity may contribute per year to another nongroup entity for the purpose of influencing an election, candidate, write-in candidate, group, or political party from $1,000 to $2,000. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS interjected and proposed skipping the sectional due to time constraints. He invited questions from the committee. 3:46:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN recalled that when considering the per- person contribution limit, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals mentioned findings that the limit specifically relates to reasonable legislative objectives, which allows for limiting the speech that the contributions constitute. He asked how the proposed limits would meet a reasonable basis for contributions. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE recalled that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision had communicated that the only legitimate reason to curtail freedom of speech through political contributions is in the interest of anti-corruption to avoid the appearance or actuality of quid-pro-quo transactions or dealings. He said the amount of money in campaigns makes him uncomfortable; however, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission created a new landscape wherein limitations on free speech must be made cautiously. He added that the limits proposed in HB 234 were selected in an attempt to balance the citizens expressed interest with the ruling of the Courts. 3:48:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed out that in 1974, the Alaska State Legislature passed a law that implemented a limit of $1,000 to counter corruption, which was later changed to $500 by a citizens' initiative and then raised back to $1,000 by the legislature based on zero legislative findings of corruption. He said he had been troubled by the reference to 2003, when in reality, the legislature applied the limit of 1,000 in 1974, which after adjusting for inflation, is not even close to $1,000. He expressed his concern that none of the laws were passed with reasonable findings of corruption and therefore, there wasnt a need for those particular limits. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE believed that Representative Claman had outlined a legitimate concern; however, he opined that legislators are accountable to the voters who expressed interest in a much lower limit. He emphasized the need to take the expressed will of the voters into account as new limits are set. He pointed out that 1974 was a much different time, which makes it difficult to draw a comparison. He reiterated that the citizens of Alaska have expressed a strong interest in keeping the limit low. He said his intent was to strike a delicate balance between the expressed will of the voters and the Courts ruling on a reasonable limitation on free speech. 3:51:01 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about the summary of changes in the proposed CS, Version I. 3:51:34 PM MR. GUNDERSON referenced a document titled, Summary of Changes from A to I [included in the committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: 1. Section 5(i): p 2, line 18: remove "2023" and insert "2032 2. Section 6: p 2, line 23: Remove Sec. 6. 3. Section 7: p 2, line 24: Section renamed accordingly to Sec. 6. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE confirmed that Section 6 was removed to avoid amending that section of statute; further, he noted that the adjustment of dates is to align the bill with the redistricting changes that occur every 10 years. 3:53:01 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to the adoption of the proposed CS, Version I, as the working document. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of a question regarding Section 6. He sought to clarify whether the language that was struck down by the court would be removed or left in its current form. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE explained that the original form of the bill had removed that language from statute. In Version I, however, that removal is removed to keep the language in statute; therefore, if further challenges to that language end up in litigation, further clarification could be provided by the Court. 3:53:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN removed his objection. There being no further objection, Version I was adopted. 3:54:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN considered a scenario in which inflation rose into the double digits resulting in overly restrictive contribution limits. He asked the bill sponsor to speak on the potential of that. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE acknowledged Representative Kaufmans consideration as a valid concern. He believed it illustrated yet another reason to consider a slightly higher limit; further, he opined that a limit of $1,000 for individual-to-candidate contributions would leave enough ceiling to remain legally defensible in a prolonged period of heightened inflation. 3:55:32 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the bill was held over.