Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/14/2003 09:40 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 119(STA)
"An Act authorizing the Alaska Public Offices Commission to
issue advisory opinions; amending campaign financial
disclosure requirements and the limits on lobbyists' campaign
contributions to candidates; removing municipal elections and
municipal officials from the campaign finance and public
official financial disclosure laws; amending campaign
contribution limits; amending the time limit on contributions
after primary elections; amending the complaint procedures of
the Alaska Public Offices Commission; amending the definition
of 'political party' for state election campaigns; relating to
the crime of campaign misconduct; providing for increased use
of electronic filing for reports to the Alaska Public Offices
Commission; amending the definitions of 'administrative
action' and 'lobbyist' in the regulation of lobbying laws;
amending the requirements for the reporting of financial
interests by public officials; repealing restrictions on
solicitation and acceptance of contributions during
legislative sessions and in the capital city; making
conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken stated this bill "makes several changes to the
statutes governing APOC [Alaska Public Offices Commission]." He
indicated a proposed committee substitute, Version "Q".
BROOK MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission,
presented the bill and the proposed committee substitute, Version
"Q". She informed that this bill is the result of numerous
Commission discussions regarding "tools necessary to accomplish its
mission and concepts to improve the disclosure laws."
Ms. Miles stated this bill would "provide the foundation" for
mandatory electronic filing under the campaign disclosure, lobbying
and financial disclosure laws.
Ms. Miles furthered that this bill would "codify" the complaint
process and provides more restrictive timelines to ensure
complaints reach final adjudication sooner. She also noted this
bill would provide an expedited process that would include cease
and desist powers for the Commission, with respect to alleged
violations that if not restrained, could cause irreparable harm or
materially affect the outcome of an election.
Ms. Miles remarked this bill would require full disclosure of all
campaign contributions and expenditures and would also require the
occupation and employer information only for contributors who
contribute more than $250. She noted currently this information is
required of contributors of more than $100.
Ms. Miles informed that the Commission's regulations governing
exempt fundraising events, such as "selling hot dogs on the park
strip for 25 cents," would become statutory through this
legislation. She explained that in these events, the candidates
must disclose only the number of participants and total
contribution.
Ms. Miles stated this bill would also raise campaign limits to keep
pace with inflationary costs of conducting election campaigns. She
noted candidates expending less than $5,000 on a campaign would be
exempt from filing disclosure reports; an increase from the current
$2,500 limit. She furthered that the" McIntire exemption", titled
after a US Supreme Court decision, permitting individuals who
distribute handbills or post yard signs, would be exempt from the
campaign disclosure laws if they expend $500 or less, which she
noted is an increase from the current $250 amount. She also said
the amount of individual contributions to candidates or political
action committees would increase from $500 to $1,000, and
individual contributions to political parities would increase from
$5,000 to $10,000, for reporting purposes. She summarized that the
current contribution limits would double.
Ms. Miles continued that this legislation would codify the
Commission's advisory opinion request. She explained the Commission
currently issues formal binding advice upon request under the
campaign disclosure law; however, it was discovered that the
Commission might not have this statutory authority.
Ms. Miles stated that this bill would increase the lobbyist
registration fees from $100 to $200 per lobbyist for each client in
each calendar year. She pointed out this would generate additional
program receipts for the Commission.
Ms. Miles remarked this bill would increase the limit for filing
sources of income under the financial disclosure laws for public
officials and legislators from $1,000 to $5,000 and that ownership
of stocks must be reported. She qualified that the filing
requirements relating to gifts would not change. She noted that the
process for filing disclosure reports would be streamlined.
Ms. Miles concluded that the Commission "strongly" supports this
legislation and is "eagerly seeking many of these tools" to assist
in achieving its mission.
Senator Taylor asked about prevision changes to prohibit or inhibit
a wealthy individual from entering the State and "buying an
election." He exampled the State of Washington and Marie Cantwell
who ran for congressional office against Slade Gordon, utilizing
$37 million of her own funds.
Ms. Miles informed that the Supreme Court has upheld individuals'
rights to make independent expenditures, and that the campaign
disclosure laws permits independent expenditures by individuals or
political groups. She agreed that a person with significant
personal wealth could impact on a campaign.
Senator Taylor therefore surmised that the campaign disclosure laws
would only restrict middle-income candidates.
Co-Chair Wilken clarified that the US Supreme Court prohibits such
restrictions.
Ms. Miles affirmed.
Ms. Miles pointed out language in the bill changing the definition
of "express communication" relating to issue advertising and issue
advocacy. She informed that the existing definition provides that
an express communication must include "vote for" or "don't vote
for" "elect or reject, etc." She stated that a decision issued by
the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and upheld in other
proceedings provides that any inference of an express communication
to encourage election or defeat of a candidate must be subject to
campaign disclosure laws.
Co-Chair Green clarified that the changes to financial disclosure
requirements would also apply to the spouse of a public official.
Ms. Miles replied that in Co-Chair Green's situation, income
received from clients of her husband in amounts $5,000 and higher
would be subject to disclosure.
Ms. Miles added the current $1,000 amount has been problematic for
State boards and commissions members.
JOE BALASH, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, referenced Section 18
on page 15 of the committee substitute, Version "Q", which reads as
follows.
Sec. 18. AS 15.13.400(7) is repealed and reenacted to read:
(7) "express communications" means a communication
that, when read as a whole and with limited reference to
outside events, is susceptible of no other reasonable
interpretation but as an exhortation to vote for or against a
specific candidate;
Mr. Balash noted the Senate adopted this language unanimously in
separate legislation of the prior session, although members of the
House of Representatives expressed concern it might not be
constitutional. He expressed that this language is necessary to
prevent funding from sources outside Alaska used to influence
elections.
Senator Taylor challenged that regardless of specific language, the
provision is useless if APOC requires several months to enforce
violations. He asked whether this legislation would provide faster
resolutions.
Mr. Balash replied that this legislation contains a provision
relating to expedited review of complaints. He commented that the
Governor had proposed eliminating the APOC because "it was not
capable of doing its job as a watchdog," and that this legislation
provides APOC with the "powers and expectations to act swiftly when
the timing is meaningful."
Senator Hoffman asked how this could be accomplished given the
negative amounts of the fiscal notes for this bill.
Mr. Balash qualified that the fiscal notes must be substantially
revised, noting the $500,000 reduction is in relation to the
original version of the bill, which would have eliminated APCO and
transferred its duties to the Lieutenant Governor's Office and the
Attorney General. He informed that the Conference Committee of the
FY 04 operating budget has restored some funding for administration
expenses, and he expressed intent that the remaining $100,000 would
be reflected in an updated fiscal note to reflect the increased
lobbyist fees.
Co-Chair Wilken asked if the provisions in Section 21 would
generate the $100,000. This section on page 16 of the committee
substitute Version "Q" reads as follows.
Sec. 21. AS 24.45.041(g) is amended to read:
(g) An application for registration as a lobbyist under
(a) of this section or for renewal of a registration under (f)
of this section is subject to a fee of $250 [$100]. The
commission may not accept an application for registration or
renew a registration until the fee is paid. This subsection
does not apply to a volunteer lobbyist under AS 24.45.161 or a
representational lobbyist under regulations of the commission.
Ms. Miles estimated this provision would raise $50,000 or half the
amount necessary. She explained this is due to the passage of other
legislation that would exempt some parties currently lobbying from
disclosure requirements and the registration fees.
Co-Chair Wilken calculated the additional $150 per registered
lobbyist would generate $50,000.
Ms. Miles listed 70 professional lobbyists who would still be
subject to the disclosure and registration requirements, and 114
part time lobbyists, of whom 75 would likely be exempt.
Senator Hoffman suggested levying the registration fees on a
percentage basis to offset the increased expenses.
Mr. Balash informed that the viability of imposing a fee based on
the percentage of a contract was researched; however, it would be
difficult to ascertain which portion of the contract covers
lobbying activities versus consulting.
Co-Chair Wilken pointed out that if the fee were increased to $400,
APOC operations would become revenue neutral.
Ms. Miles affirmed.
Senator Bunde questioned the use of "domestic partner".
Ms. Miles relayed that the Senate State Affairs Committee preferred
this terminology to, "spousal equivalent".
Senator Taylor asked about a prohibition of full time lobbyists who
are also married to or the domestic partner of a legislator.
Ms. Miles replied that this practice is reportable but not
prohibited.
Without objection CS SB 119, 23-GS1090\Q was ADOPTED as a working
draft.
Senator Hoffman questioned language in Section 34, amending AS
39.50.030(b), on page 20 lines 22 through 27, which reads as
follows.
(2) the identity, by name and address, of each
business in which the person, the person's spouse or domestic
partner [SPOUSAL EQUIVALENT], or the person's dependent child
has an interest or was a stockholder, owner officer, director,
partner, proprietor, or employee during the preceding calendar
year, except that an interest of less than $5,000 in the stock
of a publicly traded corporation need not be included;
New Text Underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED]
Ms. Miles explained the language relating to stocks was added due
to situations in which filers hold portfolios including various
stocks valued at less than $5,000 and the current requirement to
delineate each company in which stocks are held.
Senator Hoffman asked whether $5,000 is an adequate amount.
Ms. Miles noted that the Commission originally suggested $10,000.
Senator Taylor clarified that any businesses in which a dependent
child is involved must be reported.
Ms. Miles affirmed that the filer must name any business in which
an interest is held by that party his or her spouse and dependent
children. She noted this applies to all businesses regardless of
income generated to the filer, spouse or child.
Senator Taylor commented that filers are allowed to repeatedly
amend their disclosures if the information is not original
declared.
Ms. Miles affirmed.
Senator Olson asked how this legislation relates to other
legislation that changed the definition of lobbyist.
Ms. Miles stated that some parties currently registered as
lobbyists would not longer be required to register as such and
subsequently would not be restricted as lobbyists from making
campaign contributions.
Co-Chair Wilken asked the impact of this legislation on municipal
elections.
Ms. Miles answered that the committee substitute makes no changes
relating to municipal elections.
STEVEN CONN, Alaska Public Interest Research Group, testified via
teleconference from Seward to note this bill originally intended to
eliminate APOC, and then was amended to change the definition of
lobbyist to allow many to contribute to campaigns outside of the
election district in which they reside.
SFC 03 # 95, Side A 11:16 AM
Mr. Conn requested the bill be held until the following legislative
session to await the outcome of other legislation relating to a
sales tax and how lobbyists impact that legislation in determining
which parties are exempt from a sales tax.
DAVID FINKELSTEIN testified via teleconference from an offnet
location to ask whether municipal government would be allowed to
"opt out" of the provisions of this bill.
Ms. Miles reiterated that the provisions relating to APOC governing
of municipal elections would be unchanged by this bill.
Mr. Finkelstein referenced written testimony submitted to a prior
version of the bill [copy not provided] and indicated he would
direct his comments to items included in the committee substitute.
Mr. Finkelstein objected to the increased contribution amounts,
noting the individual contribution amount would increase to the
amount allowed prior to a ballot initiative and subsequent
legislation intended to limit the influence of parties outside the
State on elections. He reported that the number of individual
contributions from Alaskan residents has increased and he requested
the current language remain unchanged.
Mr. Finkelstein requested the contribution limits of groups remain
the unchanged. He also opposed the changes to the lobbyist
definition pointing out that prior to the 1995 legislation,
lobbyist contributions constituted a considerable portion of
campaign funding and was suspected to be a "pass through" of
funding from lobbyists' clients.
ANDREE MCLEOD testified via teleconference from Anchorage from "the
people's point of view". She read her written testimony into the
record as follows.
By raising the contribution limits, you're impacting what
economists call the limit price. It's usually done in order to
bar others from entering a market. Increasing the limit price
discourages competition.
By increasing the contribution limits, you increase the price
of campaigns, and decreasing competition for the seats up for
election, and barring others from entering races.
Why the need for the increase? I just ran a race. I had enough
to buy signs, flyers and I walked door to door every night.
More money only buys more TV and Radio and newspapers. That
space is finite. Let's face it, any more political
advertisement and you get what economists call negative
externalities. Seeing and hearing your voice will actually
discourage people from voting for you or anyone else. People
are already turned off by politicians, raising the limits will
only increase the negative feelings they hold towards
politics.
If contributors have this compelling need to give more money,
there are enough charities in the world to satisfy their urge.
st
If they want to exercise their 1 amendment right of free
speech by handing out more money, let them satisfy it by
giving it to the general fund, in your name.
Also, what you are doing is barring others from running
against you and, I have to say, that is a conflict of
interest.
Now to the subject of redefining what a lobbyist is.
Increasing the numbers of hours to 16 will allow lobbyist to
speak to you 64 times, at 15 minutes at a time. Does that
really satisfy the purpose of the lobbying statute, which
you've sworn to protect for us. NO it does not. Does that
really protect our rights to know who's influencing you when
it comes to formulating public policy? No it does not.
What about state administrators? They have a need to also know
who lobbyists are and if they're dealing with someone that has
only their clients interest in mind. With a list of lobbyists
kept at APOC, that information is but a few clicks away. And
that makes for an efficient and accountable government.
There are many compelling reasons to keep the number of hours
low. But the most compelling is that increasing the number of
hours allows lobbyist to participate in campaigns. And having
the public not know who the people are that have one pocket
full of money and the other full of chits will lead us to
corruption of the system. Is that what you want? I don't think
so. Fix APOC if that's your intent, but please, for gods sake,
don't gut lobbying laws in the process.
Add both the increased contribution limits with the
redifinition of lobbyists and you end up with one huge
negative externality. That is a legislature peopled with
officials elected from the same pools of money, resulting in a
decreased number of legislators coming from varied human
experiences. End result, mob mentality and no innovative
thinking. If that's where you want Alaska to go, then by all
means, vote to increase the limits, shove lobbyists in the
dark caverns of the political process, and bar the ordinary,
average Alaskan from entering any race from here on in.
Leaving that kind legacy is not something to be par of, or
proud of.
Senator Bunde referenced the saying, "Beauty is in the eye of the
beholder" and asserted that he could not be "bought" for $1000 or
$5000 and that not all campaigns are lost because of money.
Senator Taylor noted the witness' comments were submitted in
written format [copy on file].
Co-Chair Green commented that arbitrarily established low
contribution amounts is "insurance" for incumbents. She surmised
that increased contribution allowances would allow challengers to
wage more competitive campaigns. She opined that the proposed
adjustments are reasonable.
Mr. Balash spoke to Mr. Finkelstein's comments, pointing out that
over $2.5 million raised by candidates during the previous election
was not reported because it consisted of contributions of less than
$100.
Senator B. Stevens clarified that currently contributions of less
than $100 must be reported although the name of the contributor did
not.
Ms. Miles affirmed.
Senator B. Stevens asked if current statute stipulates that a
candidate is limited to the total amount of cash contributions
received.
Ms. Miles replied that a candidate is not limited in the total
amount of contributions of less than $100 that could be received.
She specified that a candidate could not receive more than $100
from one contributor in a calendar year without reporting that
contributor.
Senator Hoffman asked if the allowable contribution that a group
that is not political party could make to a political party would
increase from $1,000 to $4,000.
Ms. Miles affirmed.
Senator Hoffman asked whether this would be the largest percentage
increase of allowable contributions.
Ms. Miles again affirmed.
Senator Taylor spoke to the concern over the small contributions
and questioned the cost benefit of requiring candidates to report
each contributor. He suggested the only benefit of the reporting
requirements has been to allow opponents to ascertain the amount of
funds raised to allow them to counter their fundraising efforts. He
opined that this legislation is not adequate in addressing the
situation, characterizing the system as "terribly unbalanced." He
explained that wealthy candidates could contribute an unlimited
amount, while "unwealthy candidates" are restricted in the amount
of funds they could receive.
Amendment #1: This amendment lowers the amount of allowable
contribution from a group that is not a political party to a
political party from $4,000 to $2,000. The amendment changes
language in AS 15.13.070(c)(3) in Section 9 on page 6 line 28 of
the committee substitute.
Senator Hoffman moved for adoption.
Co-Chair Wilken objected.
Senator Hoffman noted this amendment would allow an increase of
twice the current amount, rather than a fourfold increase as
proposed in the committee substitute.
Senator Bunde asked for a response from APOC.
Ms. Miles stated larger increase was proposed in "deference to the
political parties themselves and what they stand for and what they
try to accomplish".
Senator Hoffman commented on the options of groups that are not a
political party to contribute to a candidate, another group or a
political party.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Hoffman and Senator Olson
OPPOSED: Senator Taylor, Senator Bunde, Senator B. Stevens, Co-
Chair Green and Co-Chair Wilken
The motion FAILED (2-5)
The amendment FAILED to be adopted.
Amendment #2: This amendment increases the allowable amount of
interest in the stock of a publicly traded corporation exempt from
reporting requirements by a public official or candidate from
$5,000 to $10,000. The amended language of Section 34. AS
39.50.030(b)(2) on page 20 lines 22 - 27 reads as follows.
(2) the identity, by name and address, of each
business in which the person's spouse or domestic partner
[SPOUSAL EQUIVALENT], or the person's dependent child has an
interest or was a stockholder, owner, officer, director,
partner, proprietor, or employee during the preceding calendar
year, except that an interest of less than $10,000 in the
stock of a publicly traded corporation need not be included;
New Text Underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED]
Senator Hoffman moved for adoption noting this is the amount
originally requested by APOC.
Co-Chair Wilken objected.
Senator B. Stevens asked when the increase was reduced to $5,000.
Mr. Balash replied that the current amount is $1,000, the Senate
State Affairs Committee increased then amount to $10,000 and that
the draft committee substitute reduced each $10,000 amount to
$5,000 in this legislation. He explained this was done "for no
particular reason" beyond "being uniform across the board."
Co-Chair Wilken removed his objection to the adoption of the
amendment.
Senator Taylor offered a motion to amend the amendment to replace
"$5,000" with "$10,000" wherever it appears in the committee
substitute.
Co-Chair Wilken objected, stating preference for addressing each
item individually.
Senator B. Stevens pointed out the amendment applies to financial
disclosures by legislators and public officials and asked for a
detailing of what the amendment to the amendment would affect.
Mr. Balash explained the amendment to the amendment would change
limits pertaining to loans, loan guarantees, fiduciary
relationships, as well as income reporting requirements.
Senator Taylor WITHDREW his motion to amend the amendment without
objection.
The amendment was ADOPTED without objection.
Amendment #3: This amendment increases the amount of certain income
that must be reported by legislators, public members of the
committee, and legislative directors to APOC, from $5,000, as
proposed in the committee substitute, to $10,000. The amended
language of Sec. 30. AS 24.60.200 (2) on page 19 lines 18 - 24
reads as follows.
(2) as to income in excess of $10,000 [$1,000]
received as compensation for personal services, the name and
address of the source of the income, and a statement
describing the nature of the services performed; if the source
of income is known or reasonably should be known to have a
substantial interest in legislative, administrative, or
political action and the recipient of the income is a
legislator or a legislative director, the amount of income
received from the source shall be disclosed;
The amended language of Sec. 34. AS 39.50.030(b)(1), (4) and (5) on
page 20, lines 17 - 21, and page 21, lines 5 - 20 reads as follows.
(1)The source of all income over $10,000 [$1,000]
during the preceding calendar year, including taxable and
nontaxable capital gains, received by the person, the person's
spouse or domestic partner [SPOUSAL EQUIVALENT], or the
person's dependent child, except that a source of income that
is a gift must be included if the value of the gift exceeds
$250;
…
(4)[5] the identity of each trust or other fiduciary
relation in which the person, the person's spouse or domestic
partner [SPOUSAL EQUIVALENT], or the person's dependent child
held a beneficial interest exceeding $10,000 [$1,000] during
the preceding calendar year, a description and identification
of the property contained in the each trust or relation, an
the nature and extent of the beneficial interest in it;
(5)[6] any loan or loan guarantee of more than
$10,000 [$1,000] made to the person, the person's spouse or
domestic partner [SPOUSAL EQUIVALENT], or the person's
dependent child, and the identity of the maker of the loan or
loan guarantor and the identity of each creditor to whom the
person, the person's spouse or domestic partner [SPOUSAL
EQUIVALENT], or the person's dependent child owed more than
$10,000 [$1,000]; this paragraph requires disclosure of a
loan, loan guarantee, or indebtedness only if the loan or
guarantee was made, of the amount still owing on the loan,
loan guarantee, or indebtedness was more than $10,000 [$1,000]
at any time during the preceding calendar year.
New Text Underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED]
Ms. Miles briefly explained the components of the amendment.
Senator Hoffman clarified that each component of the amendment
would increase the amount to that recommended by APOC.
Ms. Miles affirmed.
Senator Taylor moved for adoption.
There was no objection and the amendment was ADOPTED.
Senator Taylor asked if other provisions in the committee
substitute reduce the proposed increase from $10,000 to $5,000, as
contained in the original bill.
Mr. Balash responded that other references to dollar amounts relate
to campaign contributions rather than financial disclosures of
candidates and public officials.
Senator Olson asked the total amount of all contributions reported
from the previous election to compare with the $250 million amount
of total contributions of less than $100.
Mr. Balash stated that some campaigns received a higher
concentration of the smaller contributions.
Ms. Miles listed $11,370,000 as the amount contributed to all
campaigns in the 2002 general election.
Co-Chair Green asked whether the committee substitute would require
reporting of the name, address and employer of all contributors
regardless of the donation amount.
Ms. Miles responded that the name and address would be required.
She noted this change would be enacted through the deletion of
current statutory language.
Co-Chair Green commented that many people wish to contribute
smaller amounts to campaigns but do not want their name associated
with political activities. She questioned the need for the
provision requiring that all contributors' names be reported.
Ms. Miles responded that currently, candidates are required to
maintain a record of the names of all contributors, regardless of
the amount of a contribution. She stated this information is not
required in the disclosure report, but must be made available to
APOC in the event of a requested audit. She explained the proposed
change to include this information in the disclosure report is an
attempt to "rein in" the number of audit requests as well as to be
compatible with electronic campaign software programs. She
qualified that the names of contributors giving less than $50 at
"high volume low cost fundraising events" would not be made public.
Senator Bunde understood the desire of contributors of small
amounts to be exempt from the reporting requirements; however, he
pointed to the significant percentage of the total contributions
that are less than $100 each. He opined that the "greater good
would outweigh the concern of the individual for privacy."
Senator B. Stevens asked if the $11.3 million raised during the
previous campaign included statewide elections or only legislative
elections.
Ms. Miles replied this amount includes statewide elections.
Senator B. Stevens asked the amount raised for statewide elections
and the amount raised for legislative elections.
Ms. Miles did not have the information.
Senator B. Stevens surmised the significant portion of the total
funding was related to the three statewide seats decided in the
previous election.
Ms. Miles agreed and approximated that the "main" candidates for
these seats expended $1.5 million each.
Senator B. Stevens favored full disclosure. He asserted that
candidates are aware of the names of each contributor, as they
write thank you notes to every person who donates to their
campaign. Therefore, he stated reporting this information would not
be an added burden.
Senator Hoffman agreed with Co-Chair Green that the purpose of
disclosure is to identify large contributors and perhaps show who
could be "buying influence". He reiterated that many contributors
do not wish to be affiliated with any campaign and predicted that
the number of smaller donations could "dramatically" reduce if
individuals knew their names would be made public.
Senator Bunde remarked that ten employees of one company each
contributing $99 equals almost $1,000 and is therefore a large
contributor. He suggested that people not wishing to be "counted"
could instead "provide sweat equity" such as posting signs,
distributing flyers, etc.
Senator Olson opined that if the goal is to support participation,
the process should provide encouragement for contributors.
Otherwise, he cautioned that only the "big players" would be
involved.
Senator Taylor exampled inviting the community to a "hot dog and
chili feed" with a basket set out to accept contributions, which
would be received in checks or cash. He asked how candidates would
be expected to account for cash received at these functions. He
also expressed concern about accounting for sales of $1 raffle
tickets. He warned that failure to accurately account for each of
these contributions would result in a candidate's opponent
"vilifying" them in the media and insinuating that the candidate
was accepting $50,000 in "some back room".
Amendment #4: This amendment restores and amends statutory language
removed by this legislation thereby increasing from $100 the
required contribution amount each candidate must report. The
amended language in Section 2. AS 15.13.040(a)(1)(C) and Section 3.
AS 15.13.040(b)(3) on page 3, lines 11 - 15 and lines 26 - 31 and
page 4, lines 1 and 2 reads as follows.
(C) and for all contributions in excess of $999
in the aggregate a year, the name, address, [PRINCIPAL
OCCUPATION, AND EMPLOYER OF THE CONTRIBUTOR AND THE]
date, and amount contributed by each contributor; and
…
(3) and for all contributions in excess of $999 in
the aggregate a gear, the name, address [PRINCIPAL OCCUPATION,
AND EMPLOYER OF THE CONTRIBUTOR, AND THE] date, and amount
contributed by each contributor and, for contributions in
excess of $250 in the aggregate during the calendar year, the
principal occupation and employer of the contributor [; FOR
THE PURPOSES OF THIS PARAGRAPH, "CONTRIBUTOR" MEANS THE TRUE
SOURCE OF THE FUNDS, PROPERTY, OR SERVICES BEING CONTRIBUTED];
and
New Text Underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED]
Senator Taylor moved for adoption.
Co-Chair Wilken clarified the intent is to restore the existing
provisions in statute.
SFC 03 # 95, Side B 12:03 PM
Mr. Balash offered suggestions as to how the low cost fundraising
activities could be exempt from the individual contribution
reporting requirements.
Co-Chair Green questioned the deletion of "principal occupation and
employer of the contributor."
Without objection, Senator Taylor WITHDREW his motion to adopt the
amendment.
Amendment #5: This amendment restores statutory language removed by
this legislation relating to the required contribution amounts each
candidate must report. The amended language in Section 2. AS
15.13.040(a)(1)(C) and Section 3. AS 15.13.040(b)(3) on page 3,
lines 11 - 15 and lines 26 - 31 and page 4, lines 1 and 2 reads as
follows.
(C) and for all contributions in excess of $100
in the aggregate a year, the name, address, [PRINCIPAL
OCCUPATION, AND EMPLOYER OF THE CONTRIBUTOR AND THE]
date, and amount contributed by each contributor; and
…
(3) and for all contributions in excess of $100 in
the aggregate a gear, the name, address [PRINCIPAL OCCUPATION,
AND EMPLOYER OF THE CONTRIBUTOR, AND THE] date, and amount
contributed by each contributor and, for contributions in
excess of $250 in the aggregate during the calendar year, the
principal occupation and employer of the contributor [; FOR
THE PURPOSES OF THIS PARAGRAPH, "CONTRIBUTOR" MEANS THE TRUE
SOURCE OF THE FUNDS, PROPERTY, OR SERVICES BEING CONTRIBUTED];
and
New Text Underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED]
Senator Taylor moved for adoption.
Senator Taylor explained that a contribution of less than $100
could be received without the candidate reporting the name of the
contributor. However, he noted the candidate must keep record of
the name of that contributor in the event that person contributed
additional funds, which would raise the total contribution to an
amount in which the name must be reported.
Co-Chair Wilken asked if this reflects current practice.
Ms. Miles affirmed.
Co-Chair Green referenced Section 2. AS 15.13.040(a)(1)(D) on page
3, lines 15-17, which reads as follows.
(D) for contributions in excess of $250 in the
aggregate during a calendar year, the principal
occupation and employer of the contributor; and
New Text Underlined
Co-Chair Green questioned why the name and address of the
contributor and the date the contribution is received is not
included in this language.
Ms. Miles detailed that if this amendment were adopted, a candidate
receiving a contribution of $100 or less would be required to
report the amount of the funds received and record the name of the
contributor. She continued that a candidate receiving a
contribution of between $100.01 and $250 must report the name and
address of the contributor. Contributions of more than $250, she
furthered, would require the reporting of the name, address,
occupation and employer of the contributor.
Senator Bunde objected to the adoption of the amendment.
Senator Taylor pointed out this amendment would increase the amount
of an allowable contribution requiring the reporting of a
contributor's occupation and employer from over $100 to over $250.
Ms. Miles restated her interpretation of the amendment at Senator
Hoffman's request.
Senator Bunde spoke to his objection. He understood individuals'
concern for privacy, but asserted that to participate in the
political process, people must be willing to "acknowledge" their
involvement. He questioned the reason for exempting one-fifth of
the total campaign contributions. He also noted this information is
available to the public if an audit is requested and therefore
contributors are "given a false illusion of privacy."
Senator Olson stressed that most rural residents do not have bank
accounts and operate on a "cash economy" and that the reporting
requirements would be cumbersome.
Senator Taylor agreed with the arguments in favor of full
disclosure; however, remarked that the "most zealot advocates" of
disclosure realize the "diminimous" returns on some contributions.
Senator B. Stevens stated he objected to the amendment because it
would provide no limitation to the amount an individual could
contribute to a campaign.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Hoffman, Senator Olson, Senator Taylor, Co-Chair
Green and Co-Chair Wilken
OPPOSED: Senator Bunde and Senator B. Stevens
The motion PASSED (5-2)
The amendment was ADOPTED.
Senator Taylor offered a motion to report the committee substitute,
as amended from Committee with individual recommendations and new
fiscal note.
Without objection CS SB 119 (FIN) MOVED from Committee with fiscal
note dated 5/14/03 for $100,000 from the Department of
Administration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|