Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/19/2001 03:45 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 177-CAMPAIGN FINANCE: GROUPS & DISCLOSURE
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT, bill co-sponsor, said that members had a copy
of the sponsor statement for this campaign finance reform bill.
This legislation closes a loophole created when the last campaign
finance measure was passed.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT informed members of two changes, both on page
2. First, "contributor" is defined as "the true source of the
funds, property, or services being contributed;" rather than simply
the name of the person in which the money is given. Second, special
interest organizations are dealt with in Section 3, lines 11
through 15. The term "special interest organizations" is now
included in the terminology of group as it is currently in statute.
"That is to meet the conditions that are set apart and these were
extracted from the [American Civil Liberties Union] ACLU case years
ago when that was challenged and they were reluctant to define the
terminology 'group'."
This legislation closes a loophole, levels the playing field and
places the same restrictions and limitations on non-group entities
that fall into this category.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether there were arguments in the House
over language that was modified to deal with legal challenges.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said they have dealt with legal challenges
indirectly. Both counsel and the sponsors are of the opinion that
they are on firm legal ground in spite of arguments to the contrary
because they have extracted components from state and federal legal
cases to make the two changes. Ultimately, the courts will make the
determination.
BROOKE MILES, Assistant Director for the Public Offices Commission
of the Department of Administration, explained that this
legislation addresses non-group entities that were identified by
the Alaska Supreme Court in the Alaska v. Alaska Civil Liberties
Union decision. The court held that there were certain non-group
entities such as non-profits that should be allowed to participate
in the election campaign process even though there is a ban on
corporation business entities and trust participation.
It is her understanding that this bill addresses that by making
these organizations subject to the same disclosure requirements as
other Alaskan groups.
She has received comments expressing concern about "special
interest organization" found on page 2, line 11. The complainant
was concerned that all special interest organizations, whether they
were participating in election campaign activities or not, were now
going to be subject to regulations under the public offices
commission. Although it is not the intent of the bill and the
commission does not interpret it that way, she thought some
clarifying language was in order.
The commission has identified some costs in the first year where
some regulations would need to be promulgated and where the special
interest organizations could qualify to participate by showing they
meet the three part test described by the court and contained in
this legislation.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said he did not have the statutes in front of
him and wondered whether subsection (5) AS 15.13.400 deals with
groups participating in the political process.
MS. MILES said it does.
STEVE CLEARY, representative for the Alaska Public Interest
Research Group (AkPIRG) spoke in opposition to HB 177 because it
unfairly subjects groups to the disclosure law. In the spring of
1999, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled ideological, non-profit
corporations have a right to participate in the political process
and it interpreted parts of the campaign finance law to allow
participation by non-profit organizations. This legislation would
unfairly constrict that right.
The court ruled in this way to keep the corporate voice from
overruling the voice of individuals and for that reason AkPIRG is
standing in opposition.
He mentioned amendments that were also on the table and was
informed that they were for different legislation in the House.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said since the courts decided that groups
should be required to disclose their source of funding and since
they said groups could participate and express an opinion in the
public process, he did not see where there was a problem.
MR. CLEARY said the disclosure might provide the opportunity to
retaliate. In other court cases, disclosure may not always be
required "whenever identification and fear of reprisal would deter
speech. The First Amendment protects anonymity." For instance, an
employer might retaliate against an employee who chooses to donate
to non-profit corporations and that would unfairly limit their
speech.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked how that is different from an individual
who works for an environmental organization giving a campaign
contribution to a candidate who traditionally supported oil
development.
MR. CLEARY said if an individual chooses to donate to a political
candidate then they are subject to those disclosure laws and that
is of benefit to the state. However, if the individual elects to
donate to a non-profit organization, that should be considered
separately. With HB 177 individuals would be forced to disclose in
a political arena although they may not have been donating for a
political reason.
SENATOR PHILLIPS commented public disclosure should apply to all
groups.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for other teleconferenced or in-person
testimony.
He asked Kathryn Kurtz to address some of the comments that had
been expressed.
KATHRYN KURTZ, bill drafter, said there is case law in Alaska where
the Alaska Supreme Court has talked about the public interest in
knowing where the money that funds politics comes from. Those cases
are the Messerly and Veco decisions.
She thought Mr. Cleary was distinguishing between contributions to
candidates directly and contributions to groups that then make
contributions to candidates. That is a different context than the
Messerly or Veco cases.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said if the entities were considered groups,
disclosure would be required. He asked what limits would be placed
on money flowing through the groups to individual candidates?
MS. KURTZ said this bill would put these entities into the
definition of group, and all restrictions in AS 15.13 that apply to
groups would apply equally to these entities.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for a listing of some of those
restrictions for the record.
MS. KURTZ responded there is a dollar limit on the amount of
contributions that groups may make to particular entities.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if that meant individual candidates and
whether the limit is $1,000.
MS. KURTZ thought it was $1,000 but she did not have her statute
book available. It also subjects them to the same disclosure
requirements. Groups are now required to report the source of
contributions that exceed $100. There are also some organizational
requirements. This type of entity would be treated the same as
other groups as defined in statute.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked about outside funds coming in to go
directly into an individual political campaign or into campaign
efforts in general.
MS. KURTZ responded there are restrictions on how much a candidate
may accept from out-of-state sources. There are dollar limits for
candidates that are scaled according to office and it is a
percentage of total contributions for a calendar year.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked how that would compare if the bill is
written so that these entities are treated as individuals.
MS. KURTZ said the disclosure requirement is different because
groups must disclose the source of contributions over $100 while
individuals do not. The individual contribution limits for an
individual is lower than for groups. She thought it was $500 as
compared to $1,000.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether there would have been any problem
with defining them as individuals as opposed to groups.
MS. KURTZ said what the court was calling non-group entities seemed
to be things that involved more than one person and the term
individual generally is thought of as one person.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for confirmation that the corporation was
treated as an individual in the days when corporate contributions
were allowed.
MS. KURTZ said there is some history there with regulations and it
may be prior to the 1996 campaign finance reform.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether she saw any problem with defining
them as individuals.
MS. KURTZ replied, "That's a good question."
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT then asked whether there would be a problem
with giving them the option of being a group and disclosing or an
individual and not disclosing the source and having separate caps
on what you could do with the money.
MS. KURTZ did not know of any case law that specifically addresses
that scenario.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for questions from other committee
members. There were none.
He asked for any other testimony. There was none.
He asked Susan Schrader whether she would be willing to answer any
questions. She said she was not prepared to do so.
He then closed the hearings on HB 177 and held it in committee. He
announced his intent to move to final action on the bill during the
following week.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|