Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/26/2003 01:34 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 89-DEFINITION OF LOBBYING
MR. BRIAN HOVE, Senate Judiciary Committee aide, gave the
following explanation of the bill.
Chapter 45 of Title 24, Regulation of Lobbying, leads
off with a one sentence paragraph describing the
legislative declaration of purpose: "The Legislature
finds and declares that the operation of a
responsible, representative democracy requires that
the fullest opportunity be afforded to the people to
petition their government for redress of grievances,
and to express freely to individual members of the
Legislature, to its committees, and to officials of
the executive branch, their opinions on pending
legislation or administrative actions and that the
people are entitled to know the identity, income,
expenditures, and activities of those persons who pay,
are paid, or reimbursed for expenses or who make
expenditures or other payments in an effort to
influence legislative or administrative action."
The full statute goes on to describe reports, records,
exemptions, and so on until finally arriving at the
ubiquitous section pertaining to definitions. Number
eight defines the term 'lobbyist' in two ways.
Clearly, definition (B) is applicable to the
professional lobbyist. The sponsors of the proposed
legislation fully recognize and appreciate the public
interest, which is well served by definition (B). SB
89 does not alter this in any way.
On the other hand, definition (A) is somewhat
ambiguous to the extent that applicability rests on
two terms, these being 'substantial' and 'regular.'
These terms were not defined in statute. So we must
look to the Administrative Code for guidance,
specifically, 2 AAC 50.545. There, under item (f), we
see that substantial and regular means that a person
is considered to be a lobbyist if, '... within a 30
day period, he spends in excess of four hours in
direct communication with a public official or
legislative employee in activities directed towards
influencing legislative or administrative action.'
This definition amounts to less than 2.5 percent of
the working month, given the standard 8-hour day. Now
Webster's tells us that substantial means considerable
and that considerable means large and that large means
greater than average. Four hours out of 173 simply
doesn't come close to fitting within any of these
definitions.
SB 89 safeguards, as it should, the second half of the
declaration of purpose by preserving definition
(8)(B), pertaining to professional lobbyists. SB 89
seeks only to alter definition (8)(A) in the statute
by clearly defining the term 'substantial or regular.'
In so doing, this action accomplishes that which the
Legislature originally intended with respect to the
lobbying law. Specifically, by allowing the people the
fullest opportunity to express their opinions freely
to individual members of the Legislature on matters
regarding pending legislation.
CHAIR SEEKINS wanted to make it clear that the intent of the
bill was to define two words and, if the committee found they
were creating a loophole for professional lobbyists, they would
attempt to close the loophole. Approximately 40,000 people buy
business licenses in the State of Alaska who have zero to four
employees and it's difficult for these people to separate the
"personal side of their business with the business side of their
person." It's very important to preserve these individual's
right to speak with their legislator on issues that affect them
on a personal level, which is inseparable from their business
profession. Professional lobbyists should not be able to avoid
regulations and reporting, but the net shouldn't be so large
that it catches people inadvertently and puts them in jeopardy
of losing certain rights.
TERRY ALDRIDGE, Chair of the Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce and
small business owner, was in Juneau as part of the annual
Chamber fly-in. He testified in support of SB 89, which would
broaden the definition of lobbyist to allow business owners and
concerned citizens to communicate with their elected officials
without registering as a professional lobbyist. In March 2003
the Board of Directors passed a resolution supporting the change
in state law clarifying the definition of lobbyist in terms that
would describe activity. The Chamber doesn't believe the Alaska
Public Offices Commission (APOC) definition accurately reflects
the intent of Alaska State law in defining the true professional
lobbyist.
1:45 p.m.
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH advised that one of the definitions of
professional lobbying specifically excludes testifying before a
committee. Testifying before the Legislature is not lobbying
because it's happening within full view of the public.
MR. ALDRIDGE admitted it was confusing.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Senator French to read the section he
referenced.
SENATOR FRENCH read:
AS 24.45.161. Exemptions. (a) This chapter does not
apply to (1) an individual ...(B) who limits lobbying
activities to appearances before public sessions of
the legislature, or its committees or subcommittees,
or to public hearings or other public proceedings of
state agencies;
He said Mr. Aldridge is not lobbying when testifying before a
legislative committee.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked what would happen if Mr. Aldridge spent more
than four hours talking with his legislators on issues of
importance to the Chamber and to his businesses.
SENATOR FRENCH replied APOC might have information on how they
view teleconference testimony.
CHAIR SEEKINS said, "I just wanted to make sure since you made
the reference. We'll cross reference it on the record to the
statute."
MR. ALDRIDGE said those are some of the issues he would like to
have made clear so he could pass the information along. They
don't want to create loopholes; they simply want to be assured
they are abiding by the rules.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if he intended to limit his lobbying
activities to those listed in AS 24.45.161.
MR. ALDRIDGE replied he had no limits in mind.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if he would be comfortable saying the time
spent doesn't count in the four hours.
MR. ALDRIDGE replied that's the definition he hopes to have
clarified.
CHAIR SEEKINS advised that he reads the statute to mean you're
exempt if you limit your lobbying activities and there is no
exemption if you don't limit them. Therefore, it's not clear
what time the current testimony counts toward. Under his
interpretation this time could count toward the four hours
allowed.
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT noted it is his experience that the
Chamber will have the head of the Fairbanks Interior delegation
set up a series of meetings with legislators in their offices.
There are nine members of the Interior delegation and if someone
spent a half hour in each member's office, they would be over
the four-hour limit in one trip. That would be a meeting behind
closed doors, not open to the public and without a tape running,
which is just the kind of meeting he would want to have with his
constituents if they want to take the time to meet with him.
SENATOR SCOTT OGAN pointed out the term lobbyist came from
individuals who gathered in the lobby of the Willard Hotel in
Washington D.C. With that in mind, simply spending time in the
legislative hallways could be construed to be lobbying.
MR. ALDRIDGE responded they were looking for clarification to
ensure they weren't violating the law.
PAMELA LaBOLLE, President of the Alaska State Chamber of
Commerce and registered lobbyist, advised she spends more than
four hours lobbying in some days. She explained the state
chamber doesn't have a problem with the 1976 lobbying law, but
they do have difficulty with the definition APOC has given for
the term "substantial or regular" because they have interpreted
that as being four hours in a 30 day period. That is just 2.5
percent of a 40-hour week for an employee or business owner. In
the fall of 2002 the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce filed a
lawsuit against APOC challenging this regulation arguing it is
unconstitutional and infringes on the rights of members by
denying them the opportunity to address their public officials
on issues that impact their businesses. It's not uncommon for
business members to travel with the Governor and other officials
on trade missions, but they must register as lobbyists because
of the time spent. In addition they challenge the equity of the
law because public officials, public employees and the media are
exempt from the law.
The laws and regulations passed by the Legislature impact
private business to a greater extent than any other group and
yet, those same businesses are held to a stricter standard. The
chamber's purpose in requesting the legislation is to get a
clear definition of what the Legislature meant when they said
"substantial or regular" because it's unclear.
Another confusing point is the requirement that an individual
must register before they lobby. Although there are times an
individual may know they would spend more than four hours on a
certain issue, this isn't always the case. Phone conversations
and consultations could readily exceed the four hour limit. APOC
has added to the difficulty by including social events in the
four hour allocation.
SENATOR JOHNNY ELLIS asked her to be more specific when she said
the law infringed on a business owner's rights.
MS. LaBOLLE replied business owners give up the right to serve
on a political campaign, to contribute to a candidate of their
choice, and to serve on a board or commission if that board or
commission could impact their earnings.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if campaign contributions and Mr. Bill
Allen's concern weren't at the root of the issue.
MS. LaBOLLE disagreed.
CHAIR SEEKINS advised he introduced the bill as a result of the
orientation class he attended where he found he probably
violated the regulation when he was a state chamber member. It
was at that time that he determined the four hour limit was not
adequate. He mentioned it to Ms. LaBolle at a social event and
she informed him of the lawsuit. It was then that they agreed to
work together to establish a more reasonable number.
SENATOR ELLIS acknowledged his statement regarding the
background related to the House version of the legislation. He
was aware that the Chair was working with Representative Lesil
McGuire on the issue.
CHAIR SEEKINS said her involvement came after his suggestions
and because he needed someone to carry the legislation in the
House.
MS. LaBOLLE agreed. The chamber felt confident they would win
the case, but they realized legislation was a better avenue than
relying on APOC to establish a different number of hours. She
added Mr. Bill Allen doesn't run the Alaska State Chamber of
Commerce and the 700 business members.
SENATOR ELLIS replied he wasn't making that claim; rather he
took seriously the news reports that he approached Ms. LaBolle
and she approached the Legislature and the state chamber set
this in motion after those concerns were raised.
MS. LaBOLLE remarked, "We should all recognize you certainly
can't believe everything you read in the newspaper."
CHAIR SEEKINS said, "I'll guarantee you I didn't talk to anybody
at VECO or Bill Allen about.... the shock I felt when I turned
it up in orientation."
SENATOR ELLIS advised he recently attended a town meeting in
Anchorage and there were many people there to talk about the
Governor's proposals to impose increased taxes and cuts to
education among other things. Two people made comments on the
Governor's proposal on APOC and this legislation. A woman argued
with Representative Norman Rokeberg saying Alaska has the best
lobbying law in the country, the best public disclosure and
ethics laws in the country and we should be proud of that. In
fact, SB 89 and SB 119 represent a step backward. She said she
wants to know if someone is being compensated to influence the
Legislature. That isn't an unreasonable citizen request. When
she said that a cheer went up in the crowd and he took notice.
MS. LaBOLLE said the point the state chamber is trying to make
is that 2.5 percent of your working time is not regular or
substantial.
CHAIR SEEKINS said, "I just had the entire commission [APOC]
come and lobby me, but I don't think it's necessary for the
people of the state to know they were in my office doing that.
I'm going to still make up my mind based on what I think the
best approach is."
2:10 p.m.
SENATOR OGAN remarked, "There is a Supreme Court case law
somewhere, I don't remember whether it's U.S. Supreme Court or
Alaska Supreme Court, that talks about First Amendment rights
and people being able to contribute to campaigns and talk to
people." That case pointed out the press regularly tries to
influence legislative behavior in editorials and that is a
protected and cherished First Amendment right. He asked Ms.
LaBolle if she was taking issue with the fact that as a lobbyist
you couldn't contribute to whomever they want.
MS. LaBOLLE replied this too is an important point for chamber
members because many of them have businesses in different
districts throughout the state and are therefore concerned about
issues that impact those districts. They should be able to
support whomever they believe to be the best candidate, but they
are limited. That isn't the driving force however; they don't
believe they should have to give up any rights if they aren't
really lobbyists.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if the people in the Capitol hallways at the
end of each session should be considered lobbyists.
MS. LaBOLLE said she believes the majority of those that burn
the midnight oil at the end of session are lobbyists.
CHAIR SEEKINS added some of those are public employees that are
trying to influence legislation and they're exempt.
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT referenced the cheer elicited from the
crowd at the Anchorage town meeting and remarked legislators
must understand the intricacies of the laws and they must
determine what makes sense and what doesn't. He wondered whether
Senator Ellis asked the individual whether they knew the
intricacies and whether they knew the reasoning behind the four
hour limit. Did they know the impact on the individual in not
being able to participate in a campaign or being able to give
contributions in elections? A room full of applauding people
gives no indication whether or not they understand these
intricacies. If a discussion regarding the intricacies didn't
ensue, the applause would be largely meaningless.
SENATOR ELLIS explained the context for his statement. It was a
publicly noticed town hall meeting that was attended by
individuals of various political persuasions. The woman he
referred to was well informed and became offended when
Representative Rokeberg announced he likes to play golf with
lobbyists and if the game is under four hours there's no big
deal. She made the point that if someone is compensated for
promoting a certain interest in Juneau, she would like to know
who that is and what he or she is paid. That's not an
unreasonable request in the public interest.
He used Kevin Meyers with ConocoPhillips as an example. He comes
to Juneau to represent a significant corporate interest in the
state and has undoubtedly registered as a lobbyist. It would
probably take him a very short time to influence legislation. In
fact professional lobbyists, corporate executives or small
business owners might spend a very short time with a key
committee chair to profoundly affect the outcome of legislation.
If that is to occur, the public has a right to know.
CHAIR SEEKINS stated the right to know should be for anyone who
seeks to influence. The APOC members he met with had no
knowledge of his intent when he introduced SB 89 so he doesn't
see how anyone reading the Anchorage paper would know either. No
one from the Anchorage paper asked him so he didn't know how
they could report on the intent of the legislation or what it
was designed to do.
Kevin Meyer wouldn't influence him any more than Terry Aldridge
who he has known and regarded highly for a long time. The law
doesn't handicap the Kevin Meyers; it's the 40,000 small
businesses that are handicapped. The net is too large. "Nobody's
concentrating on Kevin Meyer or Bill Allen or any of the big
boys out there. We're trying not to make criminals out of the
little guys out there."
SIDE B
2:20 p.m.
CHAIR SEEKINS introduced Margaret Russell who has worked for him
as his business general manager since 1978.
MARGARET RUSSELL, Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce representative,
testified in support of SB 89. After reading the current
statute, reviewing the Administrative Codes, regulations and
interpretations, she and the Fairbanks Chamber support
redefining "regular and substantial" because they are currently
problematic. The Fairbanks Chamber represents more than 700
businesses most of which have five or fewer employees. Their
primary mission is to promote a climate that fosters growth and
development within the community and to be influential advocates
for the community. This in the purest sense of the term is
lobbying.
They deal with health concerns, education and child development
issues, rural and urban issues, transportation issues and
military issues among many others. They're all issues that add
to a better quality of life for the Fairbanks community and many
of those issues involve the state process. Chamber volunteers
and board members are required to be regular working members and
as a result, and to accomplish their mission, they spend a
number of hours gathering information and influencing decisions
on the issues. If they weren't influencing decisions there would
be little reason for their existence. They regularly participate
in government and military affairs committees trying to
influence the issues that come before those different venues. To
accomplish that, and without admitting guilt, it takes more than
four hours of time with legislators.
Part of her job description is to be a community leader so she
is involved in more than just business issues. She served as
past president of the United Way Board of the Tanana Valley and
in that capacity worked with a number of executive directors
from social services agencies, non-profits, and faith-based
organizations. Funding for these organizations is tied into the
state process and they depend on state legislation to accomplish
what they have set out to do. It's not uncommon for these
executive directors to spend more than the allowed time to
influence their special interests. They do this in the capacity
of their jobs and they aren't registered lobbyists. They're
grass-roots professionals and volunteers working to make their
community a better place.
As the manager of a Fairbanks business and now that she is fully
aware of the criteria and the current interpretation, she would
be less inclined to ask employees to be actively involved in
community organizations that tie into the state process. If she
told those same employees they had to register as a lobbyist,
she's uncertain whether they would want to do that. Regular and
substantial is too restrictive and risks losing ground in the
area of community involvement.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if her community work provided an indirect
benefit to the company that employs her.
MS. RUSSELL replied they volunteer because it is a return to the
community that supports the business and she has a personal
interest in making Fairbanks a better place to live. She also
acknowledged that, if Fairbanks grows as a community and, if the
state grows as well, it's likely she would sell more cars.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if she felt her previous actions were
in violation of the law.
MS. RUSSELL replied she was, absolutely, but she admits no guilt
on the record.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if many others she interacts with and
knows of were also in violation.
MS. RUSSELL said they were.
2:30 p.m.
SENATOR FRENCH commented she didn't look like a lawbreaker to
him and his interpretation of the definition differed. A
lobbyist must be employed and receive payment so if she wasn't
paid for her United Way and chamber work, then she wouldn't be a
lobbyist.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he pays Ms. Russell a salary and part of her
job description is to be actively involved in her community and
other areas that can have an indirect benefit to the company. It
should be very clear that someone working as a community
volunteer who is paid a salary to be involved would not run
afoul of the law.
SENATOR FRENCH addressed the committee and said he was looking
for someone who has been wounded as a result of the current law.
He needed a concrete example of injury.
CHAIR SEEKINS responded it's not a good law if it puts people in
jeopardy.
SENATOR OGAN said nice people do break laws because there are
unreasonable laws on the books. If the "lobbyist police" spent
times in the legislative hallways they'd probably find a lot of
people that are breaking the law and that's the reasoning behind
the bill.
SENATOR THERRIAULT pointed out Ms. Russell now knows the law and
must consider whether she will register as a lobbyist. In doing
so she gives up her constitutional right to participate in
political activities. He asked where it makes sense to draw the
line between a professional lobbyist and the small business
owner that has someone on the payroll like Ms. Russell.
MS. RUSSELL said the non-profit executive director is clearly
being paid a salary and lobbying on things that might create
economic benefit to their special interest. She asked whether
the intent of the law was to make them a lobbyist and that they
could not spend more than four hours in a thirty-day period to
accomplish their job. Redefining the terms "substantial and
regular" clears up the definition of a lobbyist and the original
intent of the law.
SENATOR ELLIS said there was substantial legislation regarding
car dealerships before the Legislature several sessions ago. If
she lobbied on that legislation in her capacity at the car
dealership, he asked if it would be reasonable for the public to
know she was engaged in that activity.
MS. RUSSELL replied if it were an ongoing part of her job
description to influence legislation on behalf of car dealers
then perhaps, at some point, it would be appropriate for the
public to know. At issue in SB 89 is what is the point that the
public should know that I'm a lobbyist or just doing something
that arises in the course of business.
CHAIR SEEKINS clarified the Alaska Automobile Association
employed a lobbyist for that legislation and Ms. Russell didn't
spend four hours talking with legislators on that issue. He
admitted he might have spent that much time, but most of the
work was done through the paid lobbyist.
2:40 p.m.
The Chair called an at ease.
2:44 p.m.
CHAIR SEEKINS called Andrea Jacobson forward.
ANDREA JACOBSON, APOC Chair, stated they are the choir to whom
they have been preaching. In prior meetings they discussed that
the four hour limit was not enough and in light of that they
were surprised the lawsuit was filed.
She clarified:
· To her knowledge no one has ever had to file as a
lobbyist for going on a trade mission because the purpose
of a trade mission has never been to influence
legislation.
· It isn't true that lobbying laws are applicable only to
businesses. Non-profits, social service organizations,
hospitals and associations are registered lobbyists.
The majority of the people that are currently registered as
lobbyists would not have to register if SB 89 passes. Although
the commission believes four hours is too restrictive, 80 hours
in a 30-day period is excessive. They were also concerned with
Section B because the language specifically excluded some people
they consider professional lobbyists.
After speaking with the Chair, they understood they didn't
understand the intent, which initially seemed as though it would
wipe out the lobbying bill. The Alaska State Constitution says
the Legislature will regulate lobbyists and they didn't want to
face constitutional problems that would arise if lobbyists
weren't regulated. They now understand that was not the intent
and believe language could be found that would be satisfactory
to everyone.
A community volunteer has never been a lobbyist in their view
unless they were acting under the control of someone that was
paying them to be there. There is a difference of opinion with
regard to the requirement to do community service work and
having that translate into a lobbying effort to influence
legislation.
As a public disclosure agency their foremost goal is to make
sure the public has the knowledge. The public can then make the
decision how they want to vote regarding who is influencing
whom. Having the information regarding who was paid to influence
a legislator is important.
LARRY WOOD, APOC Republican appointee, explained APOC has five
commissioners. Ms. Jacobson is the public member and there are
two Republican appointees and two Democrat appointees. Members
are not paid, but they are reimbursed for expenses. Currently
two members are in business, two are in public service and one
is retired.
There are four types of individuals under discussion, but just
one merits discussion.
· The first group is professional lobbyists and Section 1 (B)
makes it very clear there is no intent to impact that
group.
· The second group consists of employees that are charged, at
least partially, with doing lobbying work in the course of
their job.
He worked for a company that required him to travel to
Juneau as part of his duties and he was spending more
than four hours every thirty days so he registered as
a lobbyist.
It seems as though there is interest in including these
individuals in the group that is required to register.
· Group number three consists of those small businesses the
State Chamber spoke of. The individuals aren't paid and
their expenses might not even be reimbursed. The way the
legislation is written, if you're not paid and not
reimbursed, you're not going to be covered by the law.
· The fourth group is public officials and they are exempted
in the law and aren't under consideration in SB 89.
The conversation centers on the third group and how much time
should trigger the requirement to register. SB 89 sets the limit
at 80 hours while a House bill sets a 40-hour limit. He
suggested deleting the word "regular" because it is confusing,
but if an individual is spending a substantial amount of time in
the course of his or her regular duties, then they should be
required to register.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if there was a legitimate issue for the
Legislature to make a policy call.
MR. WOOD replied yes, four hours is too little, but 40 and 80
hours is too much.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if they had a number to suggest.
MS. JACOBSON said they were looking at 16 hours because it would
be difficult for a small business owner to be away from their
business for longer that that length of time.
Lobbying laws don't apply to just legislative lobbyists; they
also apply to administrative lobbyists she said. Therefore, in
determining the number of hours, the time period needs to be
such that it covers not just session time but also a block of
time that is easy to assess for the administrative lobbyists.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked for further clarification of
administrative lobbyists.
MS. JACOBSON explained there are lobbyists that lobby the
Legislature and there are lobbyists that lobby the
Administration. All are covered under the lobbying laws.
SENATOR OGAN said he works with a company that applies for
resource permits and they have lots of contact with the
Administration to influence them to see issues in a certain way.
Those people are paid to do that and technically, that activity
could come under the definition of administrative lobbyists.
This would probably include everyone that writes permits for a
resource development agency.
MS. JACOBSON agreed if they engage in those activities.
SENATOR OGAN emphasized anyone that fills out a permit is doing
that activity because they're trying to influence administrative
action. He opined there is a problem in the statute.
MS. JACOBSON said there is an administrative ruling that exempts
the permitting process from the lobbying disclosure.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked how she would respond to striking a
balance between Bill Allen, the owner of VECO Corporation, and
the owner of a Hallmark store in Fairbanks.
MR. WOOD replied the commission arrived at the 16 hour mark
because it is two workdays every 30 days. Of course there's room
for disagreement, but 16 hours is quite a lot of time and seems
reasonable.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked about phone time and social time.
MR. WOOD said that would be included. It's time spent for the
purpose of influencing legislation.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the commission members would agree
that when someone is required to register as a lobbyist, they're
giving up rights other citizens have.
MS. JACOBSON replied that question is directed to the wrong
individuals because as commission members they cannot engage in
those activities and she doesn't look upon that as an
unreasonable sacrifice. Those regulations are in place because
the public wants to know and they're trying to be responsive to
the public in that regard.
MR. WOOD added the courts have said that, with regard to
lobbying, some restriction is reasonable in the public interest.
He said he believes in that, but if you're a private individual
and you're not being paid, wholly or in part, or you're not
being reimbursed, you wouldn't be subject to the registration
requirements. A private businessperson that isn't reimbursed or
paid wouldn't trigger the requirement regardless of the number
of hours spent.
SENATOR THERRIAULT pointed out that others are giving up their
rights as part of their livelihood. That's different than
volunteering to be on a commission.
MS JACOBSON said they aren't prohibited from all contributions;
it's from contributing to anyone outside their district. It's
important to look at the specifics of whom they aren't allowed
to contribute to.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said it could be their brother or a number of
others they have a natural connection to. They're barred from
giving up to a maximum of $500, which is one thing the general
public doesn't know.
SENATOR OGAN read the definition of lobbyist from Black's Law
Dictionary. It is, "One who makes it a business to procure the
passage or defeat of bills pending before a legislative body."
He asked how to define that person.
MR. WOOD replied that is a legal dictionary and therefore a
collection of common definitions. In Alaska there is a structure
that has been laid out for many years and the changes proposed
by Senator Seekins don't change that. The discussion centers on
part time people and those that aren't paid at all.
3:10 p.m.
SENATOR FRENCH noted one of the strains of argument heard
throughout the issue is that people that must register as
lobbyists give up important rights and the right to make
contributions is brought up most frequently. That argument is in
the position paper of the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce and
referred to obliquely in the sponsor statement that it
unconstitutionally restricts business people. This argument
needs to be dispelled because the U.S. Supreme Court has taken
up this issue several times. (Buckley versus Vallejo) Each time
the Court said it's okay to regulate political contributions and
that's what's under discussion, the right to contribute to
political candidates. He asked if they were aware of any rulings
to the contrary.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he would argue it's okay to restrict
contributions but not contributors.
SENATOR ELLIS called a point of order. He respectfully asked the
Chair for forbearance when committee members pose a question to
witnesses.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he didn't hear a question.
SENATOR FRENCH restated his question asking whether Mr. Wood was
aware of any legal ruling that was contrary to Buckley versus
Vallejo.
TAPE 03-12, SIDE A
3:13 p.m.
MR. WOOD replied his recollection was the same as Senator
French's. The courts have permitted more regulation in the area
of lobbying. However, he understands the current law that says
you can't make contributions during the registration period and
one year thereafter is being litigated.
BROOKE MILES, APOC director, said that section of law was upheld
by the Alaska State Supreme Court as constitutional and the U.S.
Supreme Court didn't hear it.
SENATOR OGAN opined it is appropriate, as the courts have ruled,
to regulate contributions, but he didn't know whether it had
been constitutionally tested. It's an arbitrary discrimination
based on residency to tell someone they may contribute to
someone in their district but not in another district.
MR. WOOD advised, as per Ms. Miles' comments, it has been
litigated and upheld by the Alaska Supreme Court. It's in
statute, however, so the Legislature could reconsider it.
CHAIR SEEKINS said the question is, what is regular and what is
substantial? "If we're going to do this, we should not do it
lightly and we should not do it with a very low threshold."
MS. JACOBSON said Mr. Wood's suggestion of eliminating the word
"regular" is good. That would make half APOC's task easier. For
years they have regulated who can contribute to whom regarding
out-of-state contributors so there is precedent in legislation
regarding contributors as opposed to contributions.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked for the impact of dropping the word
regular.
MR. WOOD agreed it's confusing. Either word could be used and he
would recommend using substantial.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if regular had any tie to the
legislative session.
MR. WOOD said it's a "substantial" amount of time or a "regular"
amount of time and it's confusing to use both terms. It has
nothing to do with the regular legislative session.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether a person that was speeding and
wasn't stopped was still breaking the law.
MS. JACOBSON replied they were still breaking the law and it
still wasn't acceptable behavior just because they didn't get
caught.
TED QUINN, small business owner in Juneau, testified he is
currently acting as Chair of the Alaska State Chamber of
Commerce, but he was representing his business. He related
examples from his own business that raised questions about the
limit. The definition of "substantial" should be in statute and
not be left to a regulatory decision. He encouraged passage of
the legislation as written.
CHAIR SEEKINS held SB 89 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|