Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
02/10/2022 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 | |
+= | HB 251 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 234-POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION LIMITS 4:17:00 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 234, "An Act relating to political contributions; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was the proposed CS, Version I, adopted as the working draft on 2/1/22.] 4:17:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor, said his intention was to keep his introductory remarks short given the robust conversation on the prior bill. He invited questions from committee members. 4:17:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recalled that Representative Schrage had removed a portion of the proposed legislation based on the aggregate limits. He asked whether the sponsor was interested in reinserting that section based on the attorneys comments on aggregate limits during the discussion on HB 245. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE sought to clarify whether Representative Eastman was referring to out-of-state contribution limits. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN confirmed that he was referring to the aggregate out-of-state limits. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE deferred to Mr. Gunderson. 4:19:19 PM ERIK GUNDERSON, Staff, Representative Calvin Schrage, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Schrage, prime sponsor, clarified that the original bill removed existing statutory language that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down as unconstitutional in the Thompson v. Hebdon decision. He noted that Version I left that language in statute. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN wondered whether the language that the court found unconstitutional should be left in statute. He understood that the court was against it because it was not effective at limiting quid-pro-quo corruption. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said his intent is to leave that language in statute; however, he shared his understanding that the language would be unenforceable. He added that he does not intend to rectify the out-of-state limit being struck down by the court. He shared his interpretation from the guidance provided by the court that there was no workable out-of-state limit, which was why it was not addressed in the bill. 4:21:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that the annual limits were favorable to incumbents whereas campaign limits were beneficial for challengers. He asked for the bill sponsors thoughts on campaign limits versus annual limits. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said the courts had indicated that increasing contribution limits diminished the incumbents advantage in fundraising for a campaign. He believed that increasing limits to a higher threshold would minimize the challenge of running a challenger campaign. Additionally, he said he would be open to an amendment that would change the annual limit to a campaign limit based on the election cycle. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed out that the federal limit for both U.S. House and Senate was $2,900 per election; however, the primary and the general were considered two different elections; therefore, the limit was essentially $5,800. Regarding the donors First Amendment right to express his/her opinion through contributions, he opined that it was difficult to justify limiting that expression of speech less for a state House or Senate race compared to a U.S. House and Senate race. He questioned why the federal limits were not being tracked. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE reiterated that the voters had expressed concern and a desire to see lower limits. He said in crafting the bill, he recognized the implications of Citizens United. He summarized that the only legitimate reason to restrict free speech in the ability to advocate for campaigns through donations, was to eliminate or avoid the appearance or actuality of quid-pro-quo contributions or actions. He acknowledged that the federal limits provided more ceiling and limited free speech less; however, he said HB 234 attempted to strike a balance between the citizens desire to see a lower limit and a constitutionally valid limit. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about a potential amendment to close the FCA loopholes, as referenced by Representative Eastman. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE offered to follow up with the information. 4:26:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN acknowledged that the loophole may technically exist, but in reality, it didnt arise because it would take a lot of organization to fundraise, so the notion of gaining the system by utilizing FCA seemed incredibly unlikely. He reasoned that the legislature could take time to close the loophole; however, it was a loophole that was not being utilized by anyone. He believed that absent any evidence that it had been exploited, the committee should focus on the matters at hand, as opposed to hypotheticals. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said that was his initial impression as well. He added that since then, it had been brought to his attention that perhaps it has been exploited. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether it had been exploited with any frequency. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said, Apparently. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE confirmed that it was an existing loophole that was not addressed in HB 234. He suggested that keeping contributions uniform through the different levels of races throughout Alaska would not expand that loophole or offer incentive to take advantage of it. 4:27:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said she liked the idea of a unified contribution amount, which would be simpler from the publics perspective. She emphasized the importance of public engagement, adding that engagement should be prioritized over a dollar amount. She asked whether the bill sponsor had considered the idea of allowing independent expenditures to have "a wide open of outside influence into them in their impact on races. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE stated that he had not taken an extensive look at independent expenditure groups because through Citizens United, the doors have been opened for unlimited money to go to independent expenditure groups. Further, he said [the courts] made it very clear that the state is not in a position to limit contributions to independent expenditure groups. He conveyed that he personally took issue with the ramifications of Citizens United. 4:29:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE clarified that her concern was not to limit the use of independent expenditure groups. She acknowledged that the goal was to have Alaskans influencing Alaskans; nonetheless, she believed that a small degree of outside influence had its value. She questioned whether outside influence in the form of contributions to independent expenditure groups could be limited by the state and whether Representative Schrage was interested in addressing that in the bill. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE reiterated that the only legitimate reason to limit free speech was to avoid the appearance or actuality of corruption. He noted that there was no proof that out-of-state donations have any more impact on a candidates decisions or actions than in-state donations, which was why an out-of-state contribution limit had not been reimplemented in Alaska. 4:31:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the bill sponsors thoughts on graduated limits and whether the threshold for Senate should be higher than the threshold for House. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said it was a challenging question because it would make rational sense to implement a higher contribution limit for Senate races; alternatively, more voters may be inclined to participate in the election and make a contribution [with a lower limit]. Further, he pondered how a donation of $1,000 to a House race would be more or less corrupting than a $1,000 donation to a Senate race. For that reason, he believed in a uniform contribution limit across races. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referenced the 10 states with no contribution limit and proposed a comparative scenario that considered two candidates: the first was wealthy and had the ability to finance a campaign; the second was in a lower-income bracket, which put them at a financial disadvantage, but he/she had better credentials and was more aligned with the voters in the district. He asked Representative Schrage to speak on that consideration. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said it was a valid concern; however, another valid concern is that a large contribution could entice that politician into a quid-pro-quo exchange. He added that he could only speculate on how Alaskans feel about an unlimited cap on donations. He reiterated that on numerous occasions, Alaskans had expressed a high degree of concern about corruption and a very strong desire to have a low contribution limit. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recalled that the Supreme Court had noted several factors unique to Alaska, such as the size of the legislature. He asked whether Representative Schrage had considered increasing the number of legislators to appease the court. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE reiterated that his intent was to keep the bill narrow in scope while achieving the objective of restoring contribution limits. 4:37:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN recalled the scenario he posed previously regarding two different volunteers: one who was disabled but wealthy, and another who was able-bodied but unable to contribute financially. When considering limits, he asked whether there would be equity between the two voters in their ability to support a candidate. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said he hadn't thought about that. He offered to follow up after giving it more thought. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS added, What if one volunteer is smarter than the other one? Is the dumb volunteer an inequitable contribution to the campaign than the smarter one? He indicated that theres a lot of variations on that theme. 4:39:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that if an individual gets elected after raising $50,000 from friends and neighbors and $250,000 from an independent expenditure in one industry, it could create a much higher risk of corruption. He questioned how to deal with that in light of Citizens United. MR. GUNDERSON remarked that per the courts guidance, individual donations to a candidate were less influential compared to an individuals donation to an independent expenditure group. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE clarified his aide's comment, stating that if an individual made a contribution to an independent expenditure group and then the independent expenditure group spent funds on that race, the risk of quid-pro-quo engagement is diminished substantially. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN believed that from the publics perspective, that analysis would be suspect. He believed that on some level, lower campaign limits for candidates would raise the potential for independent expenditures. He opined that there was a tension between the two. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE was unsure what the public would think on the heels of Citizens United. He stated that the proposed legislation aimed to address the uncertainty around contribution limits today, adding that there was a certain level of immediacy that the bill attempted to capture. He conveyed his interest in keeping the scope of HB 234 narrow while still addressing core concerns to ensure that the public could have confidence in the upcoming elections. 4:44:59 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 234 was held over.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
HB 234 Supporting Doc District Court Thompson v Dauphinais.pdf |
HSTA 2/10/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 234 |
HB 234 Supporting Doc U.S. Supreme Court Thompson v Hebdon 2019.pdf |
HSTA 2/10/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 234 |
HB 234 Supporting Doc Ninth Circuit Thompson v Hebdon.pdf |
HSTA 2/10/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 234 |
HB 234 Supporting Doc U.S. Supreme Court Randall v Sorrell.pdf |
HSTA 2/10/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 234 |
HB 245 Supporting document - state-by-state limit type.pdf |
HSTA 2/10/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 245 |