Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/26/2000 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 26, 2000
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Joe Green
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 179
"An Act eliminating the Alaska Public Offices Commission and all
campaign contribution and expenditure limits; transferring the
administration of lobbying, conflict of interest, and financial
disclosure statutes from the Alaska Public Offices Commission to
the division of elections; relating to reporting of campaign
contributions and expenditures; defining 'full disclosure,'
'purposely,' 'recklessly,' and 'resident'; amending the definition
of 'contribution,' 'group,' and 'political party'; changing the
residency requirements for candidates for public offices; and
providing for criminal penalties for violation of these
provisions."
- MOVED CSSSHB 179(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH HOUSE STATE
AFFAIRS ZERO FISCAL NOTE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 179
SHORT TITLE: APOC REPEAL: CAMPAIGN/DISCLOSURE/LOBBYIST
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
4/07/99 671 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/07/99 671 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
4/15/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/15/99 (H) <BILL HEARING CANCELED>
4/19/99 866 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
4/19/99 866 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/19/99 866 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
4/22/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/22/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/22/99 (H) MINUTE(STA)
4/27/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/27/99 (H) BILL HEARING CANCELED
4/29/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/29/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/29/99 (H) MINUTE(STA)
5/06/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
5/06/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
5/06/99 (H) MINUTE(STA)
4/25/00 (H) STA AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 102
4/25/00 (H) Moved CSSS HB 179(STA) Out of
Committee
4/26/00 3532 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 1DP 4NR
4/26/00 3532 (H) DP: JAMES; NR: GREEN, HUDSON,
4/26/00 3532 (H) WHITAKER, OGAN
4/26/00 3533 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (H.STA)
4/26/00 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 416
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SSHB 179.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-71, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.; no other members were present at the
time. He immediately recessed the meeting to the call of the
chair.
CHAIRMAN KOTT called the meeting back to order at 8:35 p.m. All
members were present at that time. He noted that Representative
Cissna was also present.
HB 179 - APOC REPEAL: CAMPAIGN/DISCLOSURE/LOBBYIST
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the committee would take up SPONSOR
SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 179, "An Act eliminating the Alaska
Public Offices Commission and all campaign contribution and
expenditure limits; transferring the administration of lobbying,
conflict of interest, and financial disclosure statutes from the
Alaska Public Offices Commission to the division of elections;
relating to reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures;
defining 'full disclosure,' 'purposely,' 'recklessly,' and
'resident'; amending the definition of 'contribution,' 'group,' and
'political party'; changing the residency requirements for
candidates for public offices; and providing for criminal penalties
for violation of these provisions."
CHAIRMAN KOTT invited Representative Coghill to explain changes to
the bill. [Before the committee was CSSSHB 179(STA), the title of
which read: "An Act relating to the reporting of campaign
contributions and to the identification of political campaign
communications."]
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, sponsor of SSHB 179, explained that
the bill has been changed from a repeal of APOC [Alaska Public
Offices Commission] to a reporting of campaign contributions and
identification of some communications. It makes the following
changes. Section 1, amending [AS 15.13.040(a)], was added the
previous day in the House State Affairs Committee; it raises the
limit from $100 to $200 for contributions one can give in an
aggregate amount without the contributor having to provide
information. Section 3 inserts "exceeds" [$500]; someone who
contributes $499.50 [currently] will not have to put in a reporting
form, for example, but as soon as the $500 level is reached, the
contributor must do so, and thus the change. Section 6 repeals AS
15.13.080, which is the requirement for the reporting and which
read as follows [annotation provided because the 1998 amendment is
discussed later]:
Sec. 15.13.080. Statement by contributor.
(a) An individual who contributes $500, or goods or
services with a value of $500, to a candidate shall file
a contributor's statement as required by this section.
(b) An individual required to file a contributor's
statement under (a) of this section shall file on a form
made available by the commission. The statement must
(1) identify the contributor and the candidate
and all groups receiving contributions;
(2) itemize the contributions and goods; and
(3) state that the contributor is not
prohibited by law from contributing and that the
contribution consists of funds or property belonging to
the contributor and has not been given or furnished by
another person or group.
(c) The contributor's statement shall be filed with
the commission by the contributor no later than 30 days
after the contribution that requires the contributor to
report under AS 15.13.040(d) is made.
History -
(Sec. 1 ch 76 SLA 1974; am Sec. 29 ch 189 SLA 1975; am
Sec. 13 ch 48 SLA 1996; am Sec. 8, 9 ch 6 SLA 1998)
Amendment Notes -
The 1996 amendment, effective January 1, 1997,
rewrote this section.
The 1998 amendment, effective June 28, 1998, rewrote
subsection (a) and, in subsection (c) substituted "30
days" for "10 days" and inserted "that requires the
contributor to report under AS 15.13.040(d)."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL continued. He referred to Section 4, lines
30-31, relating to telephone communications. He said this was
suggested by the department because of a problem that had arisen.
Beginning on page 2, line 29, [and continuing to page 3, line 1,]
that language read:
In addition, candidates and groups must identify the name
of their campaign chair. Telephone communications need
only be identified by the name of the candidate, group,
or individual paying for the communication [CHAIRMAN].
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that this came up because of
telemarketing where the group wasn't identified; the ruling was
made in such a way that there was fear, as he understands it, that
"it may be required on all telephone communications given by a
candidate or his group, which would become tremendously
burdensome."
Number 0310
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to Form 15-5 [an APOC form titled "Statement
of Contributions]. He conveyed his understanding that,
essentially, the filing of that form has been eliminated for
individuals.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL affirmed that.
CHAIRMAN KOTT commented, "The maximum we can contribute [anyway] is
$500, so we'll never contribute more than $500."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded that the burden is put on the
candidate or the group running the campaign. There is a downside,
however, pointed out by the department: the reporting is less
frequent; it could be annually or just going into an election.
That probably will have to be looked at later, Representative
Coghill said, as far as how often the campaigners should report.
But, at this point, putting the burden on the contributor has been
the issue.
Number 0390
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA conveyed her understanding that individuals
aren't ever going to be reported on that form; it will only be the
groups.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said AS 15.13.080, repealed by Section 6,
explicitly requires reporting.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked what happens with polling under the
telephone communications section now. For example, if someone is
just doing a poll, will that be interpreted as not being intended
to influence the election?
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL answered that polling is not under this law.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that is [true] currently, even.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that if one were doing a survey as
part of a campaign, which some people think of as polling, it would
be required. He suggested there is some crossover and confusion.
Number 0477
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI expressed uncertainty with regard to how
telephone communications are defined here. Noting that backup
material for the bill refers to automated telephone messages, she
surmised that those [messages] would be subject to disclosure.
However, if she had sent out invitations to a fund-raising event,
and if she had somebody following up on that, she understands that
those telephone communications don't require a disclosure. She
asked whether that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said his understanding is that it would [be
required]. However, at that point it would be almost moot because
she would be identifying her campaign in inviting people. "That's
what we're asking for here, ... that you only identify the name of
the candidate," he stated. If he were soliciting contributions,
Representative Coghill added, his understanding is that he would
have to identify himself [because it is related to] a campaign
contribution; if he were inviting people to an event, he would have
to identify himself but wouldn't have to "go through the whole
thing of 'paid for by.'"
Number 0577
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that there are telephone hookups
into computers. She asked whether communications over the Internet
would require some disclosure.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred to page 2, line 26, the phrase "and
other communications intended to influence the election". He said
he believes that, under "their regulations," one would find that
computer messages probably would be somehow regulated under that
[language]. "We wanted to separate telephone communications from
that, very specifically," he stated. To his understanding, he
said, because of rapidly advancing technology, "other
communications" was the best that [the drafters] came up with. "I
wasn't there," he added.
Number 0795
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that it has always infuriated him
that someone who has made a contribution can be charged with a
criminal act for failure to file the proper paperwork. Therefore,
he strongly supports that [new language] in other sections.
However, he has some concerns about Section 4 regarding telephone
communications. He noted that he hadn't had a chance that evening
to look through the other election statute as it relates to the
polling issue. He said he is very uncomfortable with the language
as it is now.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG further noted that polling is allowed in
other portions of the statute. An example would occur if one filed
a letter of intent, prior to even filing for office, to conduct
polls and to be able to spend money to inquire about whether a
candidate would even have a chance of winning an election. It
seems to him that when one does an information-gathering poll, if
the group is identified, either before or afterward, it could
influence the poll itself. "The bugaboo is the 'push polling,' and
that is very problematic to kind of draft language that can make a
distinction," he stated, adding that he believes that "push
polling" should be outlawed unless there is disclosure. He
clarified that if polling is done properly, he believes it should
not be restricted or have the requirement that the candidate should
be identified per se, as opposed to having the polling group
identified.
Number 0818
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to testimony by Brooke Miles of APOC
before the House State Affairs Committee [which Representative
James chairs]. She reported that Ms. Miles had stated that polling
is not covered and is okay. "Actually, when it is required is when
you're intending to convince somebody, in one way or another, to
vote for or against someone," Representative James said. "That's
the distinction. If you're just asking questions, it's not
included; otherwise, it is." She said the problem is brought to
light because of computerized telephone calling. People were
incensed because of not knowing who was calling, and there was no
live person to talk to. She stated:
Then they were advised that ... they should disclose.
Well, disclosure means, "This call is paid for by
so-and-so, address so-and-so, ... and the campaign
chairman or treasurer is so-and-so." It's a whole big,
long thing when you're talking about disclosure. And ...
this is intended to make it perfectly clear that the only
disclosure that you have to do is, "This is the campaign
of such-and-such," and then go on with your message. So
[they would] have to do the same thing if it was ... a
computer-generated one and being paid for by the
campaign; the first thing you start out by saying is, ...
"This is from the campaign of such-and-such," [because]
you don't have to have all that other rigamarole that we
have to list off.
That's making it more simple, but there still would be a
requirement if you're doing something that is to
influence them, in any way, on the choices that they will
make. Questioning surveys are strictly just asking
questions, or survey or polling. There's a difference
between the two.
Number 0937
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative James whether there had been
further discussion with [Ms. Miles] regarding, for example,
volunteers trying to persuade a constituent to vote for a
candidate. He noted that this language says "or individual paying
for the communication." He asked whether it leads to the same
assumption regarding identifying the campaign if there is no
payment.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES answered that it has nothing to do with paying
for it; rather, it is a question of what campaign the person is
from. When trying to convince someone, by telephone, to vote for
or against something or someone, one must announce which campaign
[that person is associated with] before doing that. She indicated
the language "paid for" relates to other kinds of things that one
might be doing. In response to a request for confirmation that no
reporting on the forms was required, Representative James added,
"You just say that 'I'm from such-and-such-a-person's campaign.
That's all you need to let them know because ... it's difficult to
say what the cost is of what they're doing. It's just a telephone
communication."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she is concerned about the polling
aspect, too, because so many arguments could be made relating to
whether the polling was intended to influence someone, under this.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said this doesn't change the polling at all.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied that she knows that is what [Ms.
Miles] is saying, but she isn't sure that is how it will be read.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded, "This was the language that was
given to us [the House State Affairs Committee] by Brooke [Miles]."
Number 1061
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Coghill whether there had been
any discussion about raising the limit on page 2, line 15, from in
excess of $500 to in excess of $1,000. He commented:
If you're totally trying to get away from the substantial
amount of obligation that you have, as a contributor, to
file that [APOC Form] 15-5, you really wipe out all the
... individuals that would contribute; we've reached
their maximum. ... The PACs [political action
committees], their maximum, I believe, is a thousand.
So, if you went beyond a thousand, you would then ...
wipe away the obligation for PACs, and that would only
leave groups ...? And I'm not sure what the maximum
[is].
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that a "person" can be something
other than an individual, as he understands it. Referring to line
10 [page 2], he noted that it says ["individual, person, or group
making a contribution or expenditure"]. He said the limit for the
individual is $500; the word "exceeds" was put in there because any
other "person" or group can, in fact, give up to $1,000. He added:
And yet it is still incumbent upon ... the candidate or
campaign to report all contributions. So I still think
we're [on] good grounds here. This just pushes it so
that the individual is excepted here, kind of implying
it, and it's done more explicitly by repealing [AS]
15.13.080, by actually explicitly requiring that they
report.
Number 1170
CHAIRMAN KOTT said his point is with regard to the question of
raising the threshold to $1,000. He related his understanding that
political parties can give up to "five" [$500], and said he assumes
they would still have to file a [Form] 15-5. He added:
They're not totally sure on that. But, say, if they
don't have to file that 15-5, then the only group or
person, if you will, that is then still retained, are
those political action committees that can give up to
$1,000. And if you put in there ... "in excess of a
thousand", then we've taken them out of the picture. And
if political parties don't have to file that 15-5, then
there's no need for the 15-5, and we're still reporting
it, ... as a receiver of the contribution; we still have
that obligation. But if you want to totally get away
from filing the form, I'm just wondering if there wasn't
some discussion that took place under (indisc.--simult.
speech) on that amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded that the genesis was that
individuals themselves were being burdened. Most groups or
combinations of people [encompassed] in "person" this year are
combining together for a political purpose and, therefore, probably
would be required to report anyway; he doesn't know that that is a
bigger burden on them. Rather, [the burden] is on the individual
who has to keep an accumulated tally of what he or she has given.
"And once it breaks that $500 point, then it's a burden on him,
with a penalty," Representative Coghill said, suggesting that it
concerns many people. Therefore, at this point it is just targeted
to the individual.
Number 1268
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT, still addressing Section 3, mentioned the
retaining of AS 15.13.040(d), which read in part:
Every individual, person, or group making a contribution
or expenditure shall make a full report, upon a form
prescribed by the commission, of ....
He noted that the only thing changed in the subsequent portion of
subsection (d) [page 2, Section 3 of the bill] was the replacement
of the word "reaches" with the word "exceeds." He asked the
reason, then, for repealing AS 15.13.080, which fleshes out what
one has to say [on the report].
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she thinks that just relates to
statements by contributors, not statements by PACs or persons.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG mentioned that an individual, PAC or group
can give more. [He also asked an indiscernible question regarding
the filing of a Form 15-5.]
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked what prevents the commission from using
the same old form that would have comported with AS 15.13.080 if it
hadn't been repealed [by Section 6].
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether there is any difference
between a form that a contributor files and a form that a person or
group files.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he thinks it is just the [Form] 15-5.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI [apparently referring to AS 15.13.080]
said it is odd that the heading is "statement by the contributor."
She said it just relates to an individual who contributes $500.
Number 1400
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested that changing [AS 15.13.]080 to say
"contributes more than" would make it jibe with what had been left
in, in Section 3, and would "leave the guts of a reporting crime."
He said the only reason for getting rid of .080 seems to be if they
truly get rid of the contributor's responsibility to report.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT turned attention to Section 4. He read the
new phrase, "Telephone communications need only be identified"
[page 2, lines 30-31, of the bill]. He suggested that the
questions they are trying to get to relate to the fact that "polls"
are not really polls. He asked whether there would be any harm in
saying, "Telephone communications intended to influence an election
need only be identified ...."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated the bill had that language
originally, but Ms. Miles of APOC had thought this other language
was better.
Number 1460
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG informed members that he had drafted an
amendment for that. He read from that hand-written amendment
[later amended and adopted as Amendment 1.] It read [original
punctuation]:
p [3] line 1 after [CHAIRMAN] add
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit
informational surveys or polls, if the survey or poll is
not intended to influence the election (etc.) (see p 2
line 26 to line 27 to "question".
SEVERAL UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS said that was either better or good.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, speaking of the House State Affairs
Committee, commented, "We were convinced by Brooke [Miles] we
didn't need that."
Number 1495
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that he had used the phrase
"informational surveys or polls" in the amendment. He suggested
that perhaps "informational" should be "interrogatory," but he said
that is a "term of art."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded, "As long as you have in there
'intended to influence the campaign,' I think that's the qualifier
...." He said what he was trying to get in there, although it kept
running into problems, was that every person or group except for an
individual making a contribution or expenditure shall make a full
report. However, "person" can be, by law, an individual or group.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented, "I think this works the way we have
it."
[The amendment was handed out. There was substantial informal
discussion of various aspects of the bill.]
Number 1704
CHAIRMAN KOTT called an at-ease, which lasted from 9:04 p.m. to
9:10 p.m. He then asked whether there was further discussion. He
labeled Representative Rokeberg's amendment as Amendment 1.
Number 1723
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI and AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER objected.
Number 1739
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to amend Amendment 1 by
removing the word "informational". He also offered to explain what
"(etc.)" means. He suggested that "informational" is fuzzy and
would require definition.
CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed with simplifying it, as much as possible, at
this point.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG specified that the full amendment would
read:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit
surveys or polls, if the survey or poll is not intended
to influence the election of a candidate or outcome of
the ballot proposition or question.
Number 1790
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there was any objection to the
amendment to Amendment 1; there being no objection, it was adopted.
Chairman Kott then asked whether there still was an objection to
Amendment 1, as amended. None was offered [and an unidentified
speaker indicated there was no longer an objection]. Therefore,
Chairman Kott announced that Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 1801
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether a conceptual amendment was
desired "on the 10-day to 30-day." [He didn't specify what
language he was addressing.]
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he isn't sure why the 10 days are in there or
why there was a differentiation between a statement and a report.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it is clear that the department
doesn't even follow it, because even their own form [15-5] doesn't
follow it; it gives people 30 days.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI recalled that it was a change within the
last year. It has gone from 30 to 10.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to Form 15-5, which indicates it
was revised on 1/00 and says 30 days. Therefore, it doesn't follow
the law, he pointed out.
Number 1848
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that [the annotation] under AS
15.13.080 says:
The 1998 amendment, effective June 28, 1998, rewrote
subsection (a) and, in subsection (c) substituted "30
days" for "10 days" and inserted "that requires the
contributor to report under AS 15.13.040(d)."
He said if that is true, it appears to have been changed there but
not "in the other one."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented, "So we're okay."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated:
But if we're going to change it to 30 days in the other
one - that seems conforming - I think we should keep
.080, which simply sets out the [form]. We're going to
need this form for contributions of $501 on up to parties
or groups or whatever, and there's nothing wrong that
I've heard about .080; it says what you have to state in
there. Now, what we'd have to say is "an individual who
contributes more than $500" in .080.
Number 1890
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, along that line, suggested perhaps
modifying Section 6 to specify [deletion of AS 15.13.]080(c). He
requested confirmation that subsection (c) is the one that really
makes a difference there. Subsection (c) read:
c) The contributor's statement shall be filed with
the commission by the contributor no later than 30 days
after the contribution that requires the contributor to
report under AS 15.13.040(d) is made.
Number 1903
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to subsection (a), which read:
a) An individual who contributes $500, or goods or
services with a value of $500, to a candidate shall file
a contributor's statement as required by this section.
He stated:
If we make .080 to be an individual who contributes more
than, ... and we've changed the other to be 30 days,
we've made the two consistent with each other and
exempted the $500 contributor. The $501 contributor is
still going to have to do it, and it seems to me if
they're going to have to do it, [it might as well be] on
the form that we've done. I don't have any problem with
changing the 10 to 30, as long -- and I'd be more
comfortable with Brooke [Miles] here or somebody from
APOC. But as long as there are those 24-hour rules right
before the election, it makes more sense to have it 30.
But then I'd urge us to keep .080 but simply make it
conform by saying "who contributes more than $500."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she didn't have any problem with that.
In response to a question by Representative Rokeberg, she said
getting rid of .080 doesn't get rid of the need for the form.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether there is authorization of the
form in "the other part."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES affirmed that.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that .080 is superfluous or
redundant, then.
CHAIRMAN KOTT responded that there is still language in [AS
15.13.]040 that suggests there will be a form used to file
[regarding] contributions.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that is in subsection (d).
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he doesn't see any real value in retaining .080
because there will still be the form.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES added, "Unless we were to up the individual
contributions to a thousand; then we'd need it. Otherwise, we
don't need it."
Number 1903
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that there is a different form in
subsection (a) of [AS 15.13.]040. He read from that language
[provided in Section 1], noting that it currently applies to
anything over $100 and will now apply to anything over $200.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said that isn't Form 15-5, however.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL added that it would still be prescribed by
the commission.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he thinks it is a different form.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said there are only two forms upon which to
report, this one [Form 15-5] and the "regular APOC form that
candidates and groups and everybody has to file."
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI added that one is a candidate form, and
one is a contributor form.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded that subsection (d) is only
talking about the contributor.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that by taking .080 out, it doesn't get
rid of the form or [the filing requirement], and it doesn't get rid
of those who contribute [more than] $500.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether that was the testimony from APOC in the
House State Affairs Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded, "The lady from APOC did say that
she had not had a chance to talk to the commissioner, to give her
credit. But, on the other hand, she did know that we were
repealing that and did not make any contribution for keeping it."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said [Ms. Miles] hadn't talked about any
opinion from the commissioner; she had only come forward with her
own evaluation of the changes.
Number 2146
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said the main difference seems to be that in
.080 it says one must do a statement, on [Form] 15-5, that the
contributor is not prohibited by law from making a contribution.
He pointed out that that language is at the bottom of the form,
under the certification section. Representative Croft said that
isn't a requirement of [subsection] (a). In fact, (a) says only
that each candidate shall make a full report. If the committee
deletes [AS 15.13.]080, which is the "statement by contributor" and
the form for it, they will have deleted the form that [AS
15.13.040](d) uses. Representative Croft commented:
If we think that a person who gives $1,000 or $5,000 to
a political party ought to make a report of that, and
certify that ... that's their money and such, then we
need to keep .080. If we don't, then we need to change
(d) to reflect it, 'cause right now ... we're keeping the
requirement of anything over 500 [dollars], and we're
eliminating the form of the form.
Number 2207
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded, "Well, it sure doesn't hurt - just
to get on with this - to change, in the first line there, 'over
[$]500' and leave it in there. It's not going to do any damage."
CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed that it wouldn't do any damage.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said "exceeds" $500 is fine.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, "We'd have to change that on the first
line so that it says 'with a value of more than [$]500' or
'exceeding' -- 'an individual contributes in excess of [$]500' and
'with a value ... in excess of [$]500', two changes there, and then
leave that in there, and it solves all the problems of whether or
not we need it.
REPRESENTATIVES MURKOWSKI asked, "So we're not repealing it, which
is what [Representative Croft] wanted to do all along, right?"
CHAIRMAN KOTT responded, "That's the gist of it. ... We're
retaining it, even though I'd be surprised if they're not using
that form over in .040 as well. That's fine. ... Still, this is,
I think, where we want to get to." He asked whether committee
members were happy with that particular change.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES suggested it could be a conceptual amendment
to make those two changes.
Number 2260
CHAIRMAN KOTT specified that the change is to retain AS 15.30.080.
Deleted would be line 20 of page 3 [which said: "* Sec. 6. AS
15.13.080 is repealed."] He added:
We'll insert Section 6, [AS] 15.13.080, and then ...
we'll make that change in (a), "is amended to read," and
we'll put basically the same language, "in excess of
$500", in those two areas. ... That ensures that we're
not screwing up the form, I guess.
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the committee would adopt the
foregoing as Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked, "Do we need that 10-day, 30-day
deal?"
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded, "No, it's in here. It was changed,
it says here."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied that it was changed "there" but not in
subsection(e) of [AS 15.13.]040.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said simultaneously that it wasn't changed in
.040(d).
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether [AS 15.13.]080 has 30 days in
it.
Number 2310
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES read in part from the annotation to AS
15.13.080, discussed previously, which said:
The 1998 amendment, effective June 28, 1998, rewrote
subsection (a) and, in subsection (c) substituted "30
days" for "10 days" and inserted "that requires the
contributor to report under AS 15.13.040(d)."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether, with Amendment 2, they
hadn't kept the burden on the contributor but not the candidate or
the recipient.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied:
We have. Anything that's over 500 [dollars], we have.
And anything that is under 500, if it's ... other than an
individual, we haven't excluded it. We've only excluded
individuals. Isn't that correct? So, if it's a group or
a PAC or whatever, and it's under 500, they still have to
do it because we haven't excluded that ... for them.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether a Form 15-5 is needed just
because it is a group.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said, "Every individual, person or group
- it has to exceed 500 [dollars]."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested it needs to be consistent [to
avoid] having two different standards and confusion.
Number 2369
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked, "10 days and 30 days?" He specified that it
would be in AS 15.13.040(e).
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that is the only thing that makes sense
to him. Although he would be more comfortable with an APOC
representative there [at the hearing], he suggested doing that
[amendment] and asking APOC the following day. He said it seems to
jibe the two sections.
Number 2395
CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed that it would be consistent, at least. He
specified that AS 15.13.040(e) would be amended to read "30 days
after the contribution is made". He noted that it would be no
later than 30 days; it would change 10 days to 30 days. He asked
whether everybody understood that amendment, and indicated APOC
would be contacted about it in the morning.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG clarified that the rationale is to make all
the reporting deadlines consistent, for all parties and "all
different aspects of the law."
CHAIRMAN KOTT labeled the foregoing as conceptual Amendment 3. He
announced that without objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
TAPE 00-71, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to delete Section 5. He
explained that he had searched through [Section 5]; all he could
find was that it deleted, on page 3, line 5 of the bill, AS
15.13.080(c) from the report. He indicated he saw no need for
Section 5 because it is just a references to .080, which the
committee has put back in.
CHAIRMAN KOTT labeled that Amendment 4. He asked whether there was
any objection; none was offered. [Thus Amendment 4 was treated as
adopted.]
Number 0082
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to delete Sections 1 and 2
[Amendment 5].
[The only change made in CSSSHB 179(STA), Sections 1 and 2, was
replacing "in excess of $100" with "in excess of $200". For
Section 1, amending AS 15.13.040(a), that is found in the bill on
page 1, line 8. For Section 2, amending AS 15.13.040(b), that is
found in the bill on page 2, line 4.]
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained:
I think an important amount of information that the
public should have is those contributors in that range.
In the Knowles-Ulmer campaign of last time, there were
140 contributors under 200 [dollars], and they totaled
... more than $27,000. This is not small money. It is
not, in my experience, a particularly horribly onerous
deal - [I] pay somebody to do it, who does it fairly
inexpensively, and ... reporting the $100 checks doesn't
bankrupt me as a candidate .... You've just got to keep
good track of your stuff. But it is important to know.
In response to a question, Representative Croft indicated most of
those [Knowles-Ulmer] contributions were right at $200, but many
were for less. He indicated he thinks that the current rule,
requiring [reporting] for amounts over $100, is fair enough.
Number 0142
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES remarked that the whole reason for changing it
is because of "what we've heard from contributors." State
employees, for example, would be happy to give somebody a campaign
contribution, but they don't want their names listed, for whatever
reasons they have. She emphasized that the amount has been $100
since 1975; with inflation applied, it [would be] $209. It is a
matter of whether that is a small contribution or not, she said;
she noted that Ms. Miles hadn't offered discussion about that.
Representative James said it isn't a matter of being inconvenienced
but a matter of whether people want their names reported, and how
much they can give before that is a problem. She herself believes
that $200 isn't a problem; it is not a huge contribution. She
concluded, "If people want to do it, and don't want to have their
name listed, why should they have to do that?"
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented that she thinks the federal
reporting requirements are for anything over $250.
Number 0212
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG reported that his wife has been a "BETA"
(ph) tester for the APOC program for the last year or so. The $100
contributions are handled differently in the computer program. He
referred to the new large fiscal note [from APOC, dated 4/26/00];
he asked whether that relates to computer reprogramming.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she cannot figure out why it is a problem
at all.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said a contract consultant has built the
program that puts APOC reports on the computer and over the
Internet. He suggested that if one knew how to hack into the
computer system, one could find out the names.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES disagreed that one could find out the names,
adding that "no one knows what they are because I haven't given
them to them."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that in order to use the APOC
program, however, the name must be entered to make the
contributions balance. There is a defect in the program, he
suggested.
Number 0256
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded, "Then let's get rid of the program
because that totally destroys what the intent is. I did not know
that."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG clarified that it isn't public information,
but the name and dollar amount have to be entered into the computer
program in order to make it work.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said supposedly there are some security measures that
will prevent the average citizen from accessing the information.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG surmised that that is what the money is [in
the fiscal note], for reprogramming. "So if you took this out, it
would lower the fiscal note," he concluded.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied, "I don't believe that."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG admitted that he was just guessing.
CHAIRMAN KOTT suggested there would only be a change of one or two
words in the instructions [that would require reprogramming].
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that it is a customized program
rather than being off-the-shelf software.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she would be surprised if it cost more
than $2,500 [to reprogram].
CHAIRMAN KOTT pointed out that eliminating the vast number of
individual 15-5 forms would mean those would no longer need to be
analyzed, reviewed, entered or followed up on. He suggested there
may be some savings there.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded, "At least on the file cabinets
to put the things in."
Number 0358
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there was further discussion on
Amendment 5.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT observed that there had been no formal
objection but a lot of dissent.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES proposed that perhaps it should be made like
the federal [limit], at $250.
CHAIRMAN KOTT suggested that if a change is wanted, it should be
made now, rather than coming back next year and spending another
$60,000 or whatever it costs for reprogramming.
Number 0377
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented, "If we went to 250 [dollars], that
brings up a problem because in the closing days of the campaign,
any contribution over 250 [dollars] you have to report within 24
hours. This might eliminate that problem, too."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded, "No, it wouldn't, but I wouldn't
mind eliminating it." He moved to adopt the original bill. [There
were ensuing comments and laughter.]
Number 0407
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to a full-page newspaper
advertisement paid for by "Responsible Cruising in Alaska, Juneau,
Alaska" [not provided in packets]. He said it certainly was
intended to influence legislation, and this group is not listed
with APOC. He asked whether something should be done to correct
this situation.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded that he had seen it, and it isn't
intended to influence a campaign or initiative. He stated, "I
don't know that we have any, or should have any, restriction on
people taking whatever methods they want to influence legislation,
even some that border on or cross the offensive." Representative
Croft said that is people's right to do. [The legislature] has set
limits and disclosures when someone is trying to influence an
election or an initiative on the ballot. The people, in effect,
have a right to know when someone is trying to influence those, on
those public votes. However, the people don't have a vote on that
piece of legislation [referred to in the newspaper]; only
legislators have a vote on that. Representative Croft said he
worries that [limiting that] would come up against not only First
Amendment concerns "but just that we don't need to." He concluded,
"In effect, that's the people trying to influence us. ... And
whether offensive or not, I'm not sure that we need to restrict or
limit it."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded, "They should disclose who they
are."
Number 0511
CHAIRMAN KOTT returned attention to Amendment 5. He asked whether
there was further discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected.
CHAIRMAN KOTT conveyed his understanding that Representative James'
objection was based on inflation, if nothing else.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded, "Absolutely."
CHAIRMAN KOTT added that Representative Rokeberg has suggested that
the fiscal note will perhaps come down.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented:
It's a little bit of a public perception here, to a
degree, on it, although I support the concept of the bill
here. I think it's warranted. But I am concerned about
public perception whenever we're changing campaign law.
The most important part of this bill is the 15-5
penalties against contributors, which I think is
offensive; it always has been to me.
CHAIRMAN KOTT pointed out that the committee isn't changing any
provision in the campaign law that would allow anyone to
contribute, or [candidates] to receive, any greater amount than
what currently exists today. "All this does is just provide some
concealment to those that may want to contribute over that ... $100
threshold," he concluded.
Number 0581
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA told members that she thinks that
concealment is the question. Even if the contributor has only
given $5, it is potentially public [information]. She stated:
All that has to be done is someone ask you for your
records, and you've got to come forward with them. So,
the person who contributes to a political campaign has no
protection from having their [name] delivered. And I
think $100 is something everyone is used to; the public
is used to it. They can't give more than 500 [dollars].
Every one of us probably has a computer program that
looks up the names. I'd keep it at 100 [dollars]. I
wouldn't, at this point of session, go to raising it.
... It's interesting listening to the inflation question,
but I don't think that's the heart of it. The heart of
it is the public's right to know. And I think that once
you start dealing in campaign finances, the public has a
real broad right to know. So I'd keep it at 100
[dollars].
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES suggested, in essence, that people often
contribute to several things but limit themselves to $100 in total.
She finds it very difficult to get enough money for a campaign
because she lives in a poor district, she indicated, and would like
it if people were willing to give her more money because of having
a higher limit before listing their names on a report.
Representative James said she has no problem with campaign
disclosure. She concluded:
What I have a problem with is what they do with the
disclosure. And ... if you want people to help you to
get elected, they should be able to do it without being
intimidated. And I think that having that at $200 allows
them a little bit more freedom to do that - allows me to
get a little bit more money.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested the only person reading [the
disclosure] would be the opponent anyway.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, "And the newspaper. The newspaper's the
worst one."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested having a CPI [cost-price index]
clause. He then agreed with Representative James that it is
getting increasingly difficult to raise money for a campaign, which
is to the benefit of incumbents who weren't born with a "silver
spoon." He doesn't think that the public is ready to accept or
recognize that yet, he added.
Number 0766
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI told fellow members that she isn't
convinced that by requiring disclosure at $100 or more, "we really
lose that many contributors," even though perhaps the occasional
state employee doesn't want his or her name on there, and,
therefore, gives $99.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked how many checks one receives for $99.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she is looking at it from the same
point of view that Representative Rokeberg is. She stated:
From the public's point of view, is this a concern that
we are able to hide more money - $27,000 if we take
[Representative Croft's] numbers [regarding the
Knowles-Ulmer campaign]? I'm hoping that one of these
days everything that we get in campaign contributions is
going to be posted on the Internet anyway, and we don't
have to deal with this silly reporting stuff - going back
to [Representative Coghill's] original bill here - in
which case this whole conversation becomes somewhat
academic.
The comment was made that perhaps we look at the federal
limit, and I don't know that it's necessary to go that
far. I just don't see what we gain by bumping it up, at
this point in time. The inflation argument is an
argument to be made, but I think ... it's going to not
what people are willing to give but the whole disclosure
aspect of it. And are we willing to disclose those
people that are contributing to us? I don't think that
there should be any reason why we're not.
Number 0859
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES withdrew her objection, noting that she still
thinks [the $200 in Sections 1 and 2] is a very good idea; that is
why she had put that in, in the House State Affairs Committee. If
everyone else was going to object, however, she wouldn't stop [the
bill] from going forward.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested that the arguments being made are
good ones for public funding for campaigns, which would allow
people more ability to enter politics.
Number 0900
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there was further discussion on
Amendment 5; no discussion or objection was offered. He announced
that, without objection, Amendment 5 was adopted, deleting Sections
1 and 2 of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI, in response to indications that not much
remained of the bill, pointed out that it still gets rid of Form
15-5, which is important. She believes that Form 15-5 has
discouraged people from giving money.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed that it is an important step.
CHAIRMAN KOTT commented that the only thing that is not narrow is
the title. He turned attention to the fiscal note, specifying that
he believes a [positive] fiscal note is no longer necessary because
of adoption of Amendment 1. He suggested that such things are
commonly done "under the auspices of a change in statute" without
any associated costs. Chairman Kott pointed out that there once
was a zero fiscal note, and the only change made was the addition
of Sections 1 and 2 [in the House State Affairs Committee].
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that the House State Affairs
Committee did the zero fiscal note.
Number 1060
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt a House Judiciary
Committee zero fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he wouldn't object to that, but he would
ask "them" [APOC] the following day whether the change in Sections
1 and 2 means that they would essentially agree.
CHAIRMAN KOTT moved that the committee adopt either a House
Judiciary Committee zero fiscal note or the House State Affairs
Committee [zero] fiscal note. He specified that, if possible, the
latter would be adopted.
Number 1111
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move CSSSHB 179(STA), as
amended, from committee with individual recommendation and the
House State Affairs Committee fiscal note attached.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT commented that before sending it over to the
other body, he would do something about the title, probably on the
floor.
CHAIRMAN KOTT suggested the title ought to be the bill itself. He
said he would be more than happy to adjust the title, if the
committee so desired.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented that Sections 3 and 4 remain.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to rescind his motion.
Number 1156
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT offered a conceptual amendment [Amendment 6]
to write "a very tight title under this bill."
CHAIRMAN KOTT restated that the tightest title would be the bill.
He specified that Amendment 6 would construct a very tight title
that would basically repeat the contents of the bill, "or something
similar." [No objection was stated; thus Amendment 6 was treated
as adopted.]
Number 1188
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG renewed his motion to move CSSSHB 179(STA),
as amended, from committee with individual recommendations and the
attached House State Affairs Committee zero fiscal note. There
being no objection, CSSSHB 179(JUD) was moved from the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|