Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/05/2003 08:20 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
May 5, 2003
8:20 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair
Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 157
"An Act eliminating the Alaska Public Offices Commission;
transferring campaign, public official, and lobbying financial
disclosure record-keeping duties to the division of elections;
relating to reports, summaries, and documents regarding
campaign, public official, and lobbying financial disclosure;
providing for enforcement by the Department of Law; making
conforming statutory amendments; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 157
SHORT TITLE:ELIMINATE APOC
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/05/03 0426 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0426 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/05/03 0426 (H) FN(S): FORTHCOMING
03/05/03 0426 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/11/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/11/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/12/03 0522 (H) FN1: ZERO(GOV) RECEIVED
03/12/03 0522 (H) FN2: (ADM) RECEIVED
03/12/03 0522 (H) FN3: (ADM) RECEIVED
04/22/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/22/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/24/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/24/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/29/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/29/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
05/01/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/01/03 (H) Heard & Held -- Recessed to
Mon. 5/5 8:00 AM --
MINUTE(STA)
05/05/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions for the committee during
the hearing on HB 157.
JUSTIN ROBERTS, Intern
to Representative Max Gruenberg
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented Amendment 10 on behalf of
Representative Gruenberg, sponsor, and explained the effects of
Amendment 6 on Section 13, during the hearing on HB 157.
TAMMY KEMPTON
Regulation of Lobbying
Public Offices Commission
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions for the committee during
the hearing on HB 157.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-49, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting, which had been recessed on 5/1/03, back to
order at 8:20 a.m. Representatives Seaton, Dahlstrom, Lynn,
Berkowitz, and Weyhrauch were present at the call to order.
Representatives Holm and Gruenberg arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 157-ELIMINATE APOC
Number 0030
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 157, "An Act eliminating the Alaska Public
Offices Commission; transferring campaign, public official, and
lobbying financial disclosure record-keeping duties to the
division of elections; relating to reports, summaries, and
documents regarding campaign, public official, and lobbying
financial disclosure; providing for enforcement by the
Department of Law; making conforming statutory amendments; and
providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS)
for HB 157, labeled HB 157.doc, 4/24/03.]
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reminded the committee members that, through a
roll call vote during the 5/1/03 portion of this meeting, they
had adopted Amendment 1-B, which read as follows:
Page 1, lines 7 - 9:
Delete "amending the campaign finance and public
official financial disclosure laws to allow
municipalities to choose whether they apply to
municipal elections and municipal officials;"
Page 2, lines 1 - 21:
Delete all material.
Page 2, line 22:
Delete "Sec. 2"
Insert "Section 1"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, lines 6 - 19:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, line 24:
Delete "sec. 20"
Insert "sec. 19"
Page 22, line 29:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 34"
Page 23, line 5:
Delete "sec. 20"
Insert "sec. 19"
Page 23, line 6:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 23, line 8:
Delete "Section 36"
Insert "Section 33"
Page 23, line 9:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 35"
Number 0142
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to adopt Amendment 1-C, which
read as follows:
Page 1, line 1, following "An Act":
Insert "relating to the master register of voter
registration and to a list of persons who voted in the
last election;"
Page 1, following line 12:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 15.07.127 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.07.127. Preparation of master register.
The director shall prepare both a statewide list and a
list by precinct of the names and addresses of all
persons whose names appear on the master register [AND
THEIR POLITICAL PARTY AFFILIATION]. Any person may
obtain a copy of the list, or a part of the list, or
an electronic format containing both residence and
mailing addresses of voters, by applying to the
director and paying to the state treasury a fee as
determined by the director."
Page 2, line 1:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 16, following line 24:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 23. AS 15.15.400 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.15.400. Preparation of voter list. The
director shall prepare both a statewide list and a
list by precinct of the names and addresses of all
persons who voted in the election [AND THEIR POLITICAL
PARTY AFFILIATION]. Any person may obtain a copy of
the list, or a part of the list, or a computer tape
containing both residence and mailing addresses of
voters, by applying to the director and paying to the
state treasury a fee as determined by the director."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, line 24:
Delete "sec. 20"
Insert "sec. 21"
Page 22, line 29:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 39"
Page 23, line 5:
Delete "sec. 20"
Insert "sec. 21"
Page 23, line 6:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 36"
Page 23, line 8:
Delete "Section 36"
Insert "Section 38"
Page 23, line 9:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 40"
Number 0164
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that Amendment 1-C is a step
towards a non-partisan legislature. He pointed out that the
government doesn't keep track of people's religion, or other
private information, so he questioned why it does keep track of
a person's political party [affiliation]. He said that
Amendment 1-C would remove the government's ability to keep
track of people's political parties.
Number 0287
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, in response to a question by Chair
Weyhrauch, reiterated that the government does not currently
keep track of "all kinds of private information." He opined
that an individual's political affiliation is really none of the
government's business. He stated that he has never understood
how political parties have achieved a "unique status." He said
they are not mentioned in the constitution and are an "evolved
creature." He stated that it seems to him that political
parties are being treated differently than other organizations.
At the state level, particularly, he noted that he has not seen
any wonderful benefits from political parties. He added, "I
think they're more an impediment to the political process than
anything else."
Number 0357
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if the ability of people who register to
vote to put down "undeclared," "undecided," or "non-partisan,"
deals with "the desire for them to not keep track of a political
party?"
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ answered yes and no. He revealed that
he was once undeclared, because he had thought he would be able
to get literature from both political parties; however, he noted
that he didn't receive literature from either [party].
[Referring again to Chair Weyhrauch's question], he said, "No, I
think it doesn't." He explained, "It's still an intrusion ...
by government into my privacy."
Number 0515
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered his understanding that the proposed
Amendment 1-C would amend Section 1; however, Section 1 was
deleted by the adopted Amendment 1-B. He asked if that is
correct.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ answered that it would be a "new
Section 1."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG added, "It's just called that for
convenience." He opined that it's helpful to "know the
parties." In response to a question by Representative
Berkowitz, he explained, "The more information we know, the
better."
Number 0611
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH remarked that the whole system of government,
politics, and elections seems to be imbued with a sense that
identification of a party and/or person is not only legitimate,
but constitutional, and is done and recognized by the [U.S.]
Supreme Court, as well as by legislatures in the executive
branch. He said it seems to him that an individual can opt out
of providing that information, because it's not a requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that Chair Weyhrauch could
not say that he was undeclared and then run for office under a
party label.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said that a voter [who is not running for
office] could register to vote without giving [his/her party
affiliation].
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded that his experience has been
that when the party labels are put on, people "stereotype
positions," and don't make further inquiries, and it stifles
good quality debate. To illustrate his point, he noted that the
committee members in the room [share] "all kinds of agreements
in places that people wouldn't anticipate." He said that
"we've" elevated loyalty to party to a place that he thinks is
inappropriate. He continued as follows:
Parties have a very distinct and critical role in the
American political system; they're supposed to be
fountains of ideas, not fountains of cash and raw
political power. And that's what they've been
transformed into.
I don't see a lot of great new ideas coming out of the
parties. I see ideas coming out of think tanks. I
see ideas coming out of individuals. But the parties
are now all about who's in control and who's winning,
and forgetting about what the stakes are all about;
forgetting about why we're involved in the political
process. ... Anything we can do to diminish the power
seems to me a step in the right direction.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ clarified that this [amendment] would
not preclude membership in political associations, but is one
step toward removing official government sanction of these
entities.
Number 0805
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said, "I think ... this amendment is
beyond the title of what we're talking about." He stated that
the issue before the committee is in regard to the Alaska Public
Offices Commission (APOC), not the abolition of political
parties, for example; therefore he encouraged the committee to
move past Amendment 1-C.
Number 0848
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN stated that [Representative Berkowitz] makes
a good point regarding what political parties have become. He
added, "Nonetheless, it seems to me that we need to have it a
part of the voter list." He said he knows that non-partisan
[candidates] can run for office, because his opponent in the
general election was non-partisan.
Number 0900
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew his motion to adopt the
Amendment 1-C, because he said he takes Representative Seaton's
point.
Number 0929
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that Representative
Berkowitz's issue may be appropriately heard at another time.
Number 0940
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that, there being no objection,
Amendment 1-C was withdrawn.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that Amendments 1 and 1-A were not
going to be offered by Representative Gruenberg.
Number 1020
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to adopt Amendment 2, which read
as follows [including handwritten section notations]:
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "to allow municipalities to choose whether
they"
Insert "that"
Sec 1
Page 2, lines 10 - 21:
Delete "only if [UNLESS] the municipality has
opted for [EXEMPTED ITSELF FROM] the provisions of
this chapter to apply; a municipality may opt into
[EXEMPT ITS ELECTED MUNICIPAL OFFICERS FROM] the
requirements of this chapter if a majority of the
voters voting on the question at a regular election,
as defined by AS 29.71.800(20), or a special
municipality-wide election called for that purpose,
votes to apply [EXEMPT ITS ELECTED MUNICIPAL OFFICERS
FROM] the requirements of this chapter; the question
of the application of [EXEMPTION FROM] the
requirements of this chapter may be submitted by the
governing body by ordinance or by initiative election.
A municipality that opts for the application of the
requirements of this chapter shall pay a fee to the
state for services under this chapter. The amount of
the fee will be set by the Department of
Administration in regulation."
Insert "; the Department of Administration shall
assess an annual fee to each municipality covered by
this chapter to pay the municipality's proportional
share of the actual costs of the commission for
providing services under this chapter [UNLESS THE
MUNICIPALITY HAS EXEMPTED ITSELF FROM THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS CHAPTER; A MUNICIPALITY MAY EXEMPT ITS ELECTED
MUNICIPAL OFFICERS FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS
CHAPTER IF A MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS VOTING ON THE
QUESTION AT A REGULAR ELECTION, AS DEFINED BY
AS 29.71.800(20), OR A SPECIAL MUNICIPALITY-WIDE
ELECTION CALLED FOR THAT PURPOSE, VOTES TO EXEMPT ITS
ELECTED MUNICIPAL OFFICERS FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THIS CHAPTER; THE QUESTION OF EXEMPTION FROM THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER MAY BE SUBMITTED BY THE
GOVERNING BODY BY ORDINANCE OR BY INITIATIVE
ELECTION]."
Sec 33
Page 22, lines 18 - 19:
Delete all material.
Insert "services under AS 15.13 and the fee for a
municipality to pay the state if the municipality opts
under AS 39.50.145 to have AS 39.50 apply to its
public officials."
Number 1027
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM spoke to Amendment 2, explaining that
its two main points are to remove the "opt in" and "opt out"
provisions and to have the administration assess an annual fee
that each municipality will pay to cover its share of costs.
Number 1097
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, in response to comments by Representatives
Berkowitz and Gruenberg, said he thinks Representative
Dahlstrom's Amendment 2 is "the opposite" of the adopted
Amendment 1-B. He asked Representative Dahlstrom to clarify if
"they would be in ... automatically, unless they opted out."
Number 1102
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM answered no. She clarified that
[Amendment 2] says that [all municipalities] are in and pay
their share of the administrative cost of running the election.
She stated that she feels the rules for elections and the fees
should be consistent statewide, so that candidates know the
rules are the same, even if they move to new areas to run. She
also posited that municipalities should pay and the state should
not be made to pick up the cost of elections.
Number 1197
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if [Amendment 2] is an apportioned
fee covering the full costs of an election or of reporting.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM answered yes. Responding to a follow-
up question by Representative Seaton, she reiterated that all
municipalities would be "in" - [there would be no opting in or
out].
Number 1287
[There was discussion about where the deletion would occur on
lines 10-21, and ultimately a technical amendment was offered by
Representative Berkowitz.]
Number 1358
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested a technical amendment to
Amendment 2, which would be to add a period after the word
"Development" [on page 2, line 10 of the CS].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that with the addition of
Representative Berkowitz's technical amendment, the language
impacted in Amendment 2, would read as follows:
Insert ". The Department of Administration shall
assess an annual fee to each municipality covered by
this chapter to pay the municipality's proportional
share of the actual costs of the commission for
providing services under this chapter
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced, "Without objection, those technical
amendments are made."
Number 1500
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that his previous objection
to Amendment 2 is because it is a classic unfunded mandate.
There is no "opt in" or "opt out," but rather, "You shall do
this and you shall pay us."
Number 1520
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked [the executive director of APOC]
to confirm the amount she had [estimated] at a previous hearing
on HB 157 that "the total savings ... to the state" would be.
Number 1560
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), confirmed that at the last hearing on HB 157
by the committee, the commission had attempted to come forward
with some figures that were "our best possible effort at saying
what it was, that were really somewhat - I'm sorry to say -
'bogus,' because the way we implement the law doesn't
differentiate the municipal work from the state work in any
way." She explained that it's the same financial and campaign
disclosure law. She stated that the commission really needs
more time to figure out a formula to determine what the actual
cost is.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his intention to "reluctantly
vote against" [Amendment 2], because [the outcome] could be
difficult for small communities. He emphasized that he wants to
see statewide uniformity and "quality enforcement of campaign
laws." He opined that it would be easy for somebody in a small
community to manipulate an election.
Number 1656
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON turned to a letter dated April 30, [2003],
from APOC, [which is attached to a 5-page listing of communities
and their public official financial disclosure status, and is
included in the committee packet]. He pointed out all of the
communities that are exempt and stated that most of those
communities have a difficult time getting people to run for
their local offices. He posited that putting these small
communities "into the APOC situation" would have a negative
effect on the number of people who would be willing to run [for
office] in these small communities. For that reason, he
concluded, he would oppose [Amendment 2].
Number 1714
MS. MILES, in response to a request by Representative Dahlstrom,
stated that after looking at [Amendment 2], she realized that it
would make all of the communities less than 1,000 in population
be subject to the law, as well as the seven communities that
have voted themselves exempt from the campaign disclosure law.
Although there would be "proportional sharing of payment," it
would cost money [to those communities].
Number 1758
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said that he wants the communities to be able to
opt in and then be assessed the full value of doing so. The
communities would know this in advance, he said, so that when
they have their elections, "the community voting on it would
know what the true value would be." He explained that's why he
would vote against [Amendment 2].
Number 1789
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM withdrew [her motion to adopt]
Amendment 2.
Number 1812
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt Amendment 3, which read as
follows [including handwritten section notations]:
Sec 2
Page 3, line 16:
Delete "and"
Sec 2
Page 3, line 18, following "AS 39.50":
Insert "; and
(11) provide for a system of campaign
finance disclosure by candidates directly through the
Internet in lieu of reports filed with the commission"
Sec 8
Page 6, following line 3:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(n) A properly reported and described
transaction in an approved campaign account
established under AS 15.13.043 is sufficient to
satisfy a candidate's reporting or filing requirements
of this section in regard to that transaction."
Sec 9
Page 6, line 4:
Delete "a new section"
Insert "new sections"
Sec 9
Page 6, following line 31:
Insert "Sec. 15.13.043. Online reporting of
candidate contributions and expenditures. (a) Each
candidate shall establish an approved campaign account
for all contributions and expenditures made in
monetary form, and information of all transactions
involving the account shall be made available to the
public. A candidate may not deposit campaign
contributions or make campaign expenditures from any
other account.
(b) For all contributions and expenditures made
from the campaign account in (a) of this section, a
candidate is not required to file a report with the
commission so long as all information required under
this chapter is made in the transaction information,
notwithstanding AS 15.13.040 and 15.13.110.
(c) In this section,
(1) "approved campaign account" means an
account at a financial institution in the state that
provides the following services:
(A) all transactions and any additional
information regarding a transaction occurring in the
account are available to the public;
(B) the account allows the holder to post
additional information in relation to each transaction
to meet the reporting requirements of this chapter,
such as information regarding a contribution or
expenditure;
(C) all account information, such as
deposit slips, checks, and other evidence of the
activity in the account is held by the financial
institution for a period of at least two years, and
this information is provided to the commission for
inspection and copying at the request of the
commission;
(D) the financial institution communicates
with the commission to ensure the availability,
compatibility, and format of the account information
provided under (A) of this paragraph; and
(E) the financial institution is
responsible only for providing the account and the
account services, may charge a reasonable fee for the
services provided to the holder, and is not
responsible for the holder's compliance with the
campaign disclosure requirements of state law;
(2) "available to the public" means the
information is accessible within 48 hours after a
transaction on an Internet site maintained by the
candidate according to the standards set by the
commission and is also available for download at any
commission office to the public for a fee not greater
than the cost of providing the information."
Sec 18
Page 10, following line 8:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 18. AS 15.13.110 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(g) Notwithstanding (a) - (c) and (f) of this
section, a candidate reporting campaign contributions
and expenditures as required by AS 15.13.043 is not
required to file a report with the commission for a
contribution or expenditure made through the approved
campaign account."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Sec 35
Page 22, line 24:
Delete "sec. 20"
Insert "sec. 21"
Sec 36
Page 22, line 29:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 38"
Sec 37
Page 23, line 5:
Delete "sec. 20"
Insert "sec. 21"
Sec 37
Page 23, line 6:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 35"
Sec 38
Page 23, line 8:
Delete "Section 36"
Insert "Section 37"
Sec 39
Page 23, line 9:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 39"
Number 1819
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for purposes of discussion.
Number 1840
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN stated that the purpose of [Amendment 3] is
to broadly expand the disclosure of campaign contributions and
expenditures, to eliminate the potentiality for computational
errors, and to drastically reduce the paperwork and, thereby,
the expenses of APOC. He described it as a "win-win" amendment.
He explained that, after filing for candidacy, candidates open
bank accounts in order to deposit contributions and write checks
for expenditures. According to APOC regulations, he said,
candidates must comply with periodic "reporting," including the
reporting of expenses. He stated that this is a "very onerous
process," which makes it difficult for candidates to find
someone who will be a treasurer.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN explained that Amendment 3 would mean that
after a candidate files for election, the state would open a
bank account in that candidate's name. This bank account would
be available "to the world" to look at without a password, and
every contribution, no matter the size, would show up on the
account immediately. He suggested that this would prevent the
practice of withholding contribution or expenditure information
until "the day after the report is due." He opined that
[Amendment 3] would eliminate "fun and games," would save money,
and would serve the public interest. He described it as
"thinking outside the box."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted that some people have said this idea
would cause technical problems; however, he said that he has
spoken with "an expert in the field" who saw no problem with the
idea. He also noted that some people in the higher
administration levels have said they think the idea is feasible
and would solve a lot of problems. He asked the committee to
give [Amendment 3] consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, in response to comments by Chair Weyhrauch,
noted that, currently, Internet filing of campaign reports is
available; however, this amendment would provide instant
reporting of any transactions. He said, "It would eliminate all
these reporting periods."
Number 2435
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Representative Lynn if this
amendment would cover statewide offices and "anyone else that
APOC regulates."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN answered yes.
Number 2164
MS. MILES stated that [Amendment 3] is certainly the direction
that APOC wishes to go and is one of the concepts being
considered by the commission. She stated her concern with the
legislation at this time is that it's premature. She explained,
"This cannot happen without funding." She remarked that the
expert that Representative Lynn had previously mentioned would
certainly know that fact, because he is in the business of
selling these types of systems.
MS. MILES indicated that [candidates] publicizing their bank
accounts doesn't necessarily mean that the deposits made will
include information such as occupation, employer information,
name, and address - all the categories currently required by the
campaign disclosure law. She stated that her concern would be
to ensure consistency. She pointed to the 48-hour requirement
[in Amendment 3], and said she assumed that means that if a
candidate received a contribution and didn't post it to the
Internet within 48 hours it would be considered late and,
perhaps, be subject to a civil penalty. She stated that there
are some technicalities [to be considered]. She concluded that
[Amendment 3] is a good idea that the commission wants; however,
"mandating it in this form could be somewhat premature."
Number 2247
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he is actually very
supportive of this concept. He recalled that when APOC first
permitted on-line reporting, there was some "beta testing," and
some candidates were allowed to opt in, including him. He noted
that there were some glitches and "it was an interesting ride,"
but the bugs eventually worked themselves out. He asked Ms.
Miles if she has given any thought to "creating something like
this in a ... beta-testing form." In response to a question by
Chair Weyhrauch, he explained that beta-testing form was a term
used by computer [experts] to denote a pilot project.
MS. MILES answered that APOC has absolutely made this
consideration. She noted that it is currently a question of
funding to go forward; [because] APOC's electronic filing system
is literally on its deathbed and can't accept any more
electronic filers, because it's an old system. She explained
that, after being one of the first states that have an
electronic filing program for candidates, Alaska is now falling
behind and needs to "come onboard." She noted that there is
currently a request for capital funding going through the
process, which is slated for a project like this. She added,
"This seems to be one of the most popular concepts." She
offered her definition of beta as a word used by technology
people to describe a test run and test users.
Number 2364
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked if [Amendment 3] would allow
candidates to set up their own personal bank accounts, or if
everyone would be required to use a bank account provided by the
state. She also asked if the state, in setting up the accounts
and issuing passwords, for example, would be responsible for
fraudulent behavior of a candidate or overdrawn accounts, for
example.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, answering the last question first, stated
that he thinks the candidate will always be responsible for any
fraudulent actions he/she makes, no matter the format used.
Regarding Representative Dahlstrom's first question, he
responded that, at some point, he would like to see everybody
required to [use a bank account provided by the state] in order
to have full disclosure. He suggested there may need to be some
sort of beta process involved. He noted that there is a new
Microsoft Office program coming out that is currently being
beta-tested. Regarding the name, address, and occupation of the
contributor, he said, "That would just be a different field in
the report. That's no big deal."
Number 2478
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG commented that all of the committee
members are intrigued by the possibilities here, but many on the
committee may be concerned about mandating something that isn't
quite ready yet. He suggested that Amendment 3 be moved to the
bottom of the calendar and that Representative Lynn and his
staff work with APOC to come up with the concept of a pilot
project, with a small fiscal note. This might allow the
commission to get started on this project [if it is adopted].
Number 2568
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN responded that he is amenable to
Representative Gruenberg's suggestion.
Number 2591
MS. MILES reiterated that [APOC] currently has a request in for
capital funding and has computer programmers working on
technologically putting together a pilot program. She stated
that she is uncomfortable thinking about doing in one night what
is taking the programmers six weeks.
Number 2616
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that he had intended that the
concept for a pilot project be written in a paragraph that would
"embrace this concept generally." He indicated that this idea
would give the commission another way of possibly funding this -
perhaps by getting money "in the capital process," or through
new legislation.
Number 2649
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if a pilot project is the same as a beta
project.
[MS. MILES nodded yes.]
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if the same intent that both
Representatives Gruenberg and Lynn seems amenable to could be
accomplished by adopting "this" and having the effective date be
2004.
MS. MILES stated that she is still concerned that [Amendment 3]
is still too specific in some ways to allow [APOC] to develop it
the way it would need to be developed. She reiterated that she
likes the concept and wants to move in that direction. She
suggested that the 48-hour requirement could be changed to 72
hours. She said, "I'm just afraid that the way this is worded
it's a little premature."
Number 2691
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that he gets uncomfortable talking
about a "small fiscal note," because a large part of [Amendment
3] would involve the acquisition of computer systems, which is
[expensive]. He said that he would be more comfortable with the
idea of getting together with the commission to come up with
some intent language. He suggested that that language might
state that it's the intent of the legislature to move into
Internet reporting, and the legislature encourages the
commission to continue to develop the system, thereby
stimulating the funding mechanism, rather than trying to adopt a
amendment with specific requirements right now.
Number 2743
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated one concern he has is unless the
legislature speaks and directs, the government may not act or
follow. He requested that Representative Lynn temporarily
withdraw Amendment 3.
Number 2789
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment 3,
and stated his intent to bring the motion up again at a future
time.
Number 2808
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 4, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided, including some
handwritten changes]:
Sec 3
Page 3, lines 24-30:
Delete all material.
Insert "contributions in excess of $100 in the
aggregate a year listing the name, address, principal
occupation, and employer of the contributor and the
date and amount contributed by each contributor. The
report shall be filed in accordance with AS 15.13.110
and shall be certified correct by the candidate or
campaign treasurer."
Sec 4
Page 4, lines 5-13:
Delete all material.
Insert "and, for all contributions in excess of
$100 in the aggregate a year, the name, address,
principal occupation, and employer of the contributor,
and the date and amount contributed by each
contributor; for purposes of this paragraph,
"contributor" means the true source of the funds,
property, or services being contributed; and
(3) the date and amount of all contributions
made by it and all expenditures made, incurred or
authorized by it."
Sec 5.
Page 4, lines 14-30:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Sec 7
Page 5, lines 8-15:
Delete all material.
Insert "and, for all such contributions in excess
of $100 in the aggregate a year, the name, address,
principal occupation, and employer of the contributor,
and the date and amount contributed by each
contributor; for purposes of this paragraph,
"contributor" means the true source of the funds,
property, or services being contributed; and
(3) the date and amount of all contributions
made by the"
Sec *
Page 6, line 1:
Delete "(b)(3), and (j)(3)"
Insert "(b)(2), and (j)(2)"
Sec 9
Page 6, line 10:
Delete "(b)(3), and (j)(3)"
Insert "(b)(2), and (j)(2)"
Number 2813
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [objected] for discussion purposes.
Number 2817
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that Amendment 4 addresses the $100
aggregate reporting and listing of the name, [address],
principal occupation, and employer of the contributor.
[The committee took a brief at-ease.]
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered an amendment to his Amendment 4,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 3, line 30,
End of Section 3
After all language, insert the following
Nothing in this section prevents a candidate from
reporting all contributors if so desired by the
candidate.
Number 2919
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes.
Number 2884
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that he did not want to preclude
the ability of someone to use an electronic checkbook and "file
their electronic checkbook with all the information for the
commission." He noted that that had been an oversight on his
part when Amendment 4 was drafted. He continued as follows:
So, the commission could now receive the electronic
checkbook; those people that are up and running that
way could just file it to the commission. Or, the
people could do as they are now, filing when there's
over $100-dollar contribution.
Number 2919
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH read the amendment to Amendment 4 and offered
his understanding that it would allow a candidate to report
everything from a penny to $1,000.
Number 2934
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered that is correct. He clarified,
"It just sets it out so we're not saying that somebody has to go
back through their electronic checkbook and has to pull out
aggregates and report a $100." He explained that a candidate
could file [using] an electronic checkbook, as long as it had
all the contributor information required, or he/she could use
the current method of the $100 aggregate.
Number 2958
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked, "Can we not now report something less
than a hundred bucks?"
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH restated Representative Lynn's question by
asking Ms. Miles, "Can a candidate report ... every
contribution?"
MS. MILES answered yes.
TAPE 03-49, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated the intent of [the amendment to
Amendment 4].
Number 2967
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated his support of the amendment to
Amendment 4. He said he wants to make sure that it's
appropriate or acceptable to file redacted information about
"these smaller contributions." He continued as follows:
For example, you could list the checks individually,
without listing the contributor by name. Or, you
could list the check and use the individual's
initials. Would that be acceptable?
Number 2948
MS. MILES answered yes, under current law it would be
acceptable, because current law does not require detailed
information [about] contributors [who give] less than $100.
Number 2937
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Representative Seaton if by using
the word "contributors" in the amendment to Amendment 4, he
meant "contributions".
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said yes.
Number 2937
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to change the word "contributors"
to "contributions" in the amendment to Amendment 4. There being
no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [as part of the amended amendment to
Amendment 4] moved to add a comma after the word
"contributions".
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH indicated that there being no objection, it was
so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [as part of the amended amendment to
Amendment 4] moved to delete the word "so".
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH indicated that there being no objection, it was
so ordered.
Number 2900
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his objection to the amended
amendment to Amendment 4.
Number 2892
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to adopting the
amended amendment [to Amendment 4]. There being none, it was so
ordered.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that an objection to Amendment 4 [as
amended] was pending.
Number 2873
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that Amendment 4 would leave the
contribution and reporting limits the way they are currently and
allow a candidate to "do $100 aggregate in contributions." He
continued as follows:
So, ... on small donations [of] $25 [to] $50 ... a
candidate can take those contributions. They must
maintain the records, but we have a number of people
that want to aid in someone's campaign, but really
don't want to get crosswise with an incumbent or with
the challenger, and they really don't want to have
their name out there. And yet, they're not
contributing enough to have undue influence in the
campaign.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that the bill, as currently written,
would require that candidates report every person who gives
money, even at small amounts. [Amendment 4, as amended] would
change that requirement, so that only those who give $100 in
aggregate must be identified.
Number 2860
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG proposed a technical amendment to
Amendment 4, to make the word "listing" underlined and in bold
[type], because on page 3, line 24 of the CS, the word "listing"
is in bold [type] and underlined.
Number 2845
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced, "Without objection, we will make that
technical amendment."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Representative Seaton to clarify that his
intent is to change the bill's providing "an amendment to $250
in the aggregate a year," back to $100.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered that that is his intent.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that once the committee has gone
through all of the proposed amendments, it would give them to
Legislative Legal and Research Services to produce a final draft
for the committee to review, so the committee can "pass out
something that we can recognize."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked that that be done on a daily
basis.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he would think about that, but commented
that he isn't sure that that would work better than "what we're
doing."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was still an objection to
Amendment 4 [as amended].
Number 2696
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his objection.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said, "I'm going to maintain the objection."
Number 2650
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned to page 4, line 5 [of the
proposed CS], and read the bold, underlined language as follows:
described in (2) of this subsection
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the words "[AND]" and
"described in (2) of this subsection" should be left in "despite
... the new proposed language."
Number 2588
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated his belief that that [language]
would only have to stay in if the aggregate was being taken to
$250, instead of to $100.
Number 2576
MS. MILES confirmed that is correct.
Number 2571
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said, "That would have to be a conforming
amendment if ... Amendment 4 [as amended] is adopted.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reminded the committee that there is a motion
pending to adopt Amendment 4 [as amended], and an objection.
Number 2560
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Chair Weyhrauch to explain why he
objects to the amendment.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH commented that the numbers are arbitrary in a
way. He asked Ms. Miles when the $100 amount was inserted in
statute.
MS. MILES answered that the $100 reporting detail has been in
the statute since it was enacted in 1974.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said that he just thinks it's time to recognize
that a higher amount - even $150 - is not that much. He stated
that he understands that the public has a right to know who
gives to campaigns; however, he said that he thinks that has to
be balanced against the administration of detaining money, and
the recognition that, over time, $100 buys a lot less now. He
indicated that [his preference for a] $250 [amount] is more of a
gut [feeling].
Number 2491
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he understands that; however, he
noted that $100 is 20 percent of what can be given on an annual
basis, and $250 is 50 percent. He stated that he thinks those
proportions are meaningful. He opined that there are good
arguments to having no limit at all, "if you want pure
transparency." He stated his intent to support Representative
Seaton.
Number 2457
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said that he would like to keep the amount
at $100, which is [the limit at which] every [legislator] in the
room got elected.
Number 2433
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he thinks the public
perceives the listing and publicity requirements as being an
important part of its participation in the political process.
Although no one may actually pull up information on the Internet
or go down to the APOC office to look at a file, it's important
for people to know that they can do that, he said. He suggested
that there is a sort of proxy system [between] the public and
the press, because the public believes the press would report
anything the public feels it should know. He stated that he
supports [Amendment 4, as amended].
Number 2377
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that paper filing has been the system for
a long time, and the whole point of Representative Lynn's
argument is that times change and "we should advance that." He
opined that there is a balance between the public's right to
know and the ability of candidates to operate in a way that
attracts people to run for public office. He continued as
follows:
I understand we all ran for office on a $100 limit,
and I'm not going to live and die on this amendment.
I just want that comment noted, that I think it's an
appropriate time to consider raising this, and I think
the public will still be served by the media and the
ability to know who's getting the campaigns and the
significant amount.
Number 2328
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN stated that although times are changing, he
does not think that contribution or reporting amounts need to
change. He said, "Apples and oranges."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated that he understands that the example he
used is "apples and oranges," in terms of contribution limits
and the ability to report electronically; however, he said he
thinks that the desire to look at this issue anew [29 years
after] it was enacted is not unreasonable. He explained that he
had just wanted to get his comments on the record regarding why
he is supporting the increase, but not as a reflection of "the
kind of amendment that you're offering." He said, "My comments
on the contribution limits should [in] no way be associated with
your promotion of your amendment on electronic reporting."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN commented that it's not unreasonable to make
the [limits] any amount; it's just that he prefers to keep them
as they are, while Chair Weyhrauch wants to raise them.
Number 2261
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Dahlstrom, Lynn,
Berkowitz, Gruenberg, and Seaton voted in favor of Amendment 4
[as amended]. Representative Weyhrauch voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 4 [as amended] was adopted by a vote of 5-
1.
Number 2200
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG specified that he would not be offering
Amendment 4-B.
Number 2183
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH brought attention to Representative Seaton's
Amendment 5, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided, including some handwritten changes]:
Sec 10,11,12
Page 7, line 1-20
Delete all material
Sections 10-12
Renumber the sections accordingly
Number 2179
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes.
Number 2145
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 5.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reminded the committee that there was an
objection stated by Representative Gruenberg [for discussion
purposes].
Number 2140
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that if the committee adopts
Amendment 5, Amendments 5-A and 5-B would be moot.
Number 2108
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that the deletion of Sections
[10, 11, and 12] would take the legislation back to the current
campaign contribution limit, which is $500-$5,000.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his objection.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced, "I'm going to maintain an objection."
Number 2068
MS. MILES, in response to questions by Chair Weyhrauch, noted
that "these current numbers" were set in statute in accordance
with campaign finance reform in 1996, effective January 1, 1997.
She revealed that it was done by legislation in response to
initiative action. Before the initiative, she continued, "the
individual amount was $1,000." She explained that that was
$1,000 that an individual could give to a candidate only.
Before the 1996 reform, the amount that an individual could give
to a political action committee or a political party was not
limited. She clarified that, prior to the reform, the amounts
that came from political action committees were limited, whereas
the amounts that came from political parties were not.
Number 1973
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated for the record, "My views are
the same as on the Amendment 4, and I'd like to keep ... the
current limits the same." He explained that that's why he's
supporting [Amendment 5].
Number 1951
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN reiterated that he thinks that the campaign
contribution limits ought to remain the same for candidates. He
posited that if [the limit] were raised to $1,000, [an affluent,
well-known] candidate who has no trouble getting $100
contributions now, would probably have no trouble getting
"almost as many $1,000 contributions." On the other hand, he
said, [an unknown candidate with few, if any, connections] would
be lucky to get a $25-$50 contribution, whether or not the limit
is set at $500 or $1,000. Raising the limit to $1,000 would
widen the gap, he said, which would have a "chilling effect" on
people who want to get into politics. He stated that he thinks
it serves the public to broaden the field of available
candidates, and he proffered that the person with the least
amount of connections might be the most qualified for candidacy.
Number 1790
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he thinks the major beneficiary of
raising the limit would be the incumbent who already has the
advantage. The $500 limit would [ensure] that candidates have
to go talk to a great many people in their districts, which he
explained is why he thinks the existing numbers work well and
why he sponsored [Amendment 5].
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN concurred with Representative Seaton.
Number 1749
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH withdrew his objection. He asked if there was
any other objection to Amendment 5. There being no objection,
Amendment 5 was adopted.
Number 1720
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN announced that he would withdraw Amendments
5-A and 5-B. He asked if, by having adopted Amendment 5, and
with Amendment 5-A and 5-B withdrawn, the legislation is "back
to where we are now."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH responded that that's his understanding.
Number 1700
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to withdrawing
Amendments 5-A and 5-B [although no motion had been formally
made to adopt them]. There being none, it was so ordered.
Number 1677
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that [the portions of his own
Amendment 6 and Representative Seaton's Amendment 7 dealing with
Page 1, line 4 and Page 8, lines 14-29 of the proposed CS] are
the same. He said he would yield to Representative Seaton to
offer his Amendment 7 at this time.
Number 1658
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the committee would "pass on
Amendment 6, at this time, and move to Amendment 7, by
Representative Seaton."
Number 1650
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 7, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided, including some
handwritten changes]:
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "and the limits in lobbyists' campaign
contributions to candidates"
Sec 15
Page 8, lines 14-29:
Delete all material and insert:
"Sec. 15. AS 15.13.074(g) is amended to read:
(g) An individual required to register as a
lobbyist under AS 24.45 may not make a contribution to
a candidate for the legislature at any time the
individual is subject to the registration requirement
under AS 24.45 and for one year after the date of the
individual's initial registration or its renewal.
However, the individual may make a contribution under
this section to a candidate for the legislature in a
district in which the individual is eligible to vote
or will be eligible to vote on the date of the
election. An individual who is subject to the
restrictions of this subsection shall report to the
commission, on a form provided by the commission, each
contribution made while required to register as a
lobbyist under AS 24.45. Upon request of the
commission, the information required under this
subsection shall be submitted electronically. This
subsection does not apply to a representational
lobbyist as defined in regulations of the commission."
Number 1644
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected for discussion purposes.
[The committee took an at-ease from 9:24 a.m. to 9:25 a.m.]
Number 1620
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that his [Amendment 6] had been
drafted by Legislative Legal and Research Services. He stated
concern that there is language in Amendment 6 that is not in
Amendment 7. He suggested that it may be necessary later to
offer parts of Amendment 6 to conform to Amendment 7, if
necessary.
Number 1580
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reminded the committee that Amendment 6 had not
been offered.
Number 1550
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON returned to the proposed Amendment 7. He
explained that the amendment would [add back the language]
stating that a lobbyist can only contribute to a candidate
within his/her district.
Number 1440
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that Amendment 7 maintains the
language currently in statute, but would also keep the language
in the proposed CS, [beginning on page, 8, line 26], which read
as follows:
Upon request of the commission, the information
required under this subsection shall be submitted
electronically.
Number 1389
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN withdrew his objection.
Number 1376
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any other objection to
adopting Amendment 7. There being none, Amendment 7 was
adopted.
Number 1363
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 8, which read
as follows:
Page 8, line 30, through page 9, line 17:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 16. AS 15.13.078(b) is amended to read:
(b) The provisions of this chapter do not
prohibit the individual who is a candidate from
lending any amount to the campaign of the candidate.
Loans made by the candidate shall be reported as
contributions in accordance with AS 15.13.040 and
15.13.110. However, the candidate may not
(1) recover, under this section and
AS 15.13.116(a)(4), the amount of a loan made by the
candidate to the candidate's own campaign that exceeds
(A) $25,000, if the candidate ran for
governor or lieutenant governor;
(B) $10,000, if the candidate ran for
(i) the legislature; or
(ii) delegate to a constitutional
convention;
(C) $10,000, if the candidate was a judge
seeking retention;
(D) $5,000, if the candidate ran in a
municipal election; or
(2) repay a loan that the candidate has
made to the candidate's own campaign unless, within 10
[FIVE] days of making the loan, the candidate notifies
the commission, on a form provided by the commission,
of the candidate's intention to repay the loan under
AS 15.13.116(a)(4)."
Number 1354
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected for discussion purposes.
Number 1330
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that Amendment 8 addresses
Section 16 of [the proposed CS]. He said that Section 16
proposes to delete the language on page 9, beginning on line 12,
through line 17, which reads as follows:
[; OR
(2) REPAY A LOAN THAT THE CANDIDATE HAS MADE
TO THE CANDIDATE'S OWN CAMPAIGN UNLESS, WITHIN FIVE
DAYS OF MAKING THE LOAN, THE CANDIDATE NOTIFIES THE
COMMISSION, ON A FORM PROVIDED BY THE COMMISSION, OF
THE CANDIDATE'S INTENTION TO REPAY THE LOAN UNDER AS
15.13.116(a)(4)].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that with the
deletion proposed in Section 16 of the CS, the bill would not
require a candidate to notify the commission at any time.
Number 1263
MS. MILES responded that a candidate would still be required to
notify [APOC] that he/she had made the contribution, but would
not be required to file a separate form making clear that it was
a loan that he/she wished to recoup, given sufficient surplus
funds at the end of the campaign.
Number 1238
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 8 would retain
the requirement that [the candidate] notify the commission, but
would extend the period of time from 5 to 10 days.
Number 1212
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked why the language that the proposed CS
would remove was ever there in the first place.
Number 1180
MS. MILES answered that it was there as a result of campaign
finance reform and was part of the initiative language. She
noted that the commission had recommended doing away with [the
language], because it had proven problematic to some candidates,
especially those new to running for office who had not had close
communications with commission staff.
MS. MILES noted that the committee aide had distributed "a copy
of the form" [included in the committee packet]. She said that
expanding the time [to turn in the form] would be helpful,
although some people will still have trouble getting a form in
on time. The contribution would have to be reported anyway, she
noted, and the law restricts the amount of money that a
candidate can recoup from surplus funds, regardless how much
he/she has put into his/her own campaign.
MS. MILES, in response to a question by Chair Weyhrauch,
surmised that the intent behind law was to provide an early
warning system for a candidate who's personally wealthy. She
continued as follows:
In addition to this, however, you should also remember
that candidates are restricted to only $5,000 of their
own money after within 30 days of the election.
Number 1043
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH described a scenario whereby a candidate might
file the election forms for office, infuse the campaign "war
chest" with $1,000,000, report that loan - as required under
existing language, subsequently raise $1,000,000, and pay
himself/herself back over time. He asked if that is
[allowable].
MS. MILES explained that, over time, that candidate could only
pay himself/herself back a given amount, depending what office
they ran for. She offered her recollection that [that amount]
may be $10,000 for [candidates to] the House, $15,000 for
[candidates to] the Senate, and $50,000 for [gubernatorial
candidates]. She explained that she doesn't have that
information with her presently, but emphasized that it's "a
limited amount."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if the bill changes the amount that
candidates can pay back to their campaigns.
MS. MILES answered that it does not.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if the committee could choose to offer an
amendment stating that a candidate could pay back 100 percent of
his/her loan.
MS. MILES answered, "Yes, you could."
Number 0952
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ opined, "You know, this is one of the
real problematic areas of law, and I think it came out of the
[Buckley v. Valeo] case." He stated that he has always found it
objectionable that the candidate is being treated differently
than other contributors. Contributors, he clarified are
limited, while candidates have no limit on how much they can
contribute. He suggested there may possibly be "some multiplier
in [Buckley v. Valeo] that would limit the amount that a
candidate could give. He proffered that the reason there are so
many millionaires in the [U.S.] Congress is that they can - at
least initially - underwrite their own campaigns. He said he
thinks that does a disservice to the idea that [the unknown
candidate previously referred to by Representative Lynn] can
run. He stated, "If there were a way to get around that
unlimited contributions, I'd surely like to know what it is."
Number 0873
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON turned to [paragraph] (2) at the bottom of
Amendment 8. Regarding [the proposed change] from 5 days to 10
days. He said he finds that "superfluous." He stated that
candidates are making contributions that they are required to
report, and the individual amount that they can repay themselves
is set in statute.
Number 0800
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON proposed a friendly amendment to Amendment
8, to delete [paragraph] 2. The effect of that amendment, he
noted, would be to eliminate "the pre-reporting that you
[intend] to repay yourself a loan."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that the
intent of [the friendly amendment to Amendment 8] is to continue
to allow candidates to repay themselves, but to eliminate the
reporting requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered that's correct. He clarified
that the reporting requirement doesn't serve much purpose,
because of the tight limits on what can be repaid by a candidate
from his/her campaign. For example, he said, "If you put in
$100,000 or $200,000 ... it doesn't matter; if you are a
candidate for the legislature, you are limited to repaying
yourself $10,000."
Number 0720
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that he would have no problem
with that concept and would consider it a friendly amendment.
Number 0703
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN stated that he would agree with that. He
said that as candidates get close to the general election, they
get very busy. He revealed that, in his own election, he was
unable to repay himself the sum of money he contributed, because
he [chose to] knock on doors than [take the time to] "carry a
piece of paper down to APOC."
Number 0578
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that the way he reads the
friendly amendment to Amendment 8, it would leave the committee
with "the original language as proposed in the bill." He said
that, if that's the case, he would urge Representative Gruenberg
to withdraw [Amendment 8].
Number 0550
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment
8.
Number 0520
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to adopt Amendment 9, labeled 23-
LS8005\A.40, which read as follows:
Page 10, lines 1 - 2:
Delete "(3) 105 [10] days after a [THE] special,
municipal, or municipal run-off election"
Insert "(3) 10 days after the election"
Number 0506
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that the 105-day requirement is
problematic, because, if there are objections to something
that's happened towards the end of a campaign, then "you need to
know about it fairly swiftly." He remarked that the 10 days
probably precisely dovetails with the time that all the absentee
votes come in and there is a final idea of where votes stand.
If there are objections to expenditures or contributions, he
said, "you would know it fairly immediately, and immediate
action could be taken." He continued as follows:
If you wait 105 days, you're in a period of time in
most instances - in fact almost every instance I can
think of - where ... the prevailing party might have
been sworn in. So, in a way, the 105-day period works
against correcting problems that exist. So, I would
say, "Let's just stick with the ... 10 days." It
works; I haven't heard any major problems with it.
It's a pain in the neck to deal with, but..."
Number 0400
MS. MILES, in response to a question by Chair Weyhrauch,
explained that the commission's recommendation was to delete the
10-day report. She continued as follows:
And so, the 105 days would have been the year end
report. ... The 105 would cover the reporting period.
Currently, language reads 90 days after the general
election, and [the commission] was providing a little
bit less. This was when we still had to have some
report for a special, municipal, or municipal run-off
election, because we deleted the 10-day for the state.
Number 0330
MS. MILES, in response to a question by Chair Weyhrauch, turned
to page 10, line 1, [paragraph] (3), which she explained
actually "deleted the 10-day report [requirement] for state
campaigns."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "This just keeps things the way
they are."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH echoed Representative Berkowitz's remark by
saying that Amendment 9 is another status quo amendment.
MS. MILES concurred.
Number 0225
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked how useful or problematic the
commission has found the 10-day report.
Number 0218
MS. MILES said that the commission, during an effort to
streamline and look for efficiencies, asked [its] staff, "If we
were going to get rid of one campaign disclosure report, what
would it be?" The staff unanimously chose the 10-day report.
She said that the 10-day report is not particularly problematic;
however, she noted that there are more late filings on that
report than on any other. She explained the reason for that is
that [at the time of the 10-day report] it is already the week
after the election week and the press often won't even pick that
report up until after it picks up the year-end report, because
it is looking for the cost of the entire campaign.
Number 0100
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG announced that he would "part company
with Representative Berkowitz on this." He stated that he
agrees with the staff of the commission. He said the 10-day
report is "just another report" that he does not see as very
important, but does see as an additional burden on the campaign.
He said he can understand wanting to bring special, municipal,
and municipal run-off elections into conformity with the state
system; however, he said he is reluctantly going to vote
[against Amendment 9].
Number 0010
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that he didn't see much use in the
10-day [reporting requirement]. He mentioned the one week
before the election, and "then the election is over."
TAPE 03-50, SIDE A
Number 0036
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted, "We do have to file large
contributions going in to the very end. What we don't have to
file are large expenditures." He warned that the danger is that
campaigns that are stockpiling money or, perhaps, borrowing and
not being held accountable, could dump a lot of money at the
very end of a campaign, and no one would know about it until 105
days after the election. Representative Berkowitz continued as
follows:
Now, to me, that can be incredibly problematic, if
those expenditures are inappropriate expenditures.
... You're saying we're not going to have any trail on
the campaign at the most critical time of the
campaign's history. ... I've run enough campaigns,
I've watched enough campaigns - those first three [or]
four months you're just building the support. It's
those final two weeks in the campaign that are most
critical. And to say we're not going to know ...
until 105 days afterwards where the money has gone,
raises a lot of questions and takes an important check
out of the system.
Number 0156
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, in response to a question by Chair
Weyhrauch, confirmed that his desire is to keep the 10-day
[requirement], and that 105 days is too long for his previously
stated reasons. He added that [the intent of Amendment 9 also
is in regard to] "the important checks." He said, "Perhaps if
there were some requirement as you go into the end, that
expenditures over a certain amount be reported - just as we have
contributions over the last couple of days be reported - I think
that might satisfy my concern."
Number 0215
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if 30 days, for example, would be
[acceptable].
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ reiterated that the 10 days made sense
to him, because it roughly dovetailed with the time that all the
absentee ballots have been counted and there is some definitive
word regarding what had happened in the election. In a close
election, where the material contained in a report might be
important in ensuing challenges to the results of an election,
[that material] would be wanted quickly. He suggested [the
number of days] could be tied to the final count, for example.
He said what makes the process more transparent is to require
people to indicate their expenditures at the end. Some people
may hide it by not paying their consultants until 30 days
afterwards, for example.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH interjected that he thought that would be
illegal.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded that that's not necessarily
so, because many times there are contracts that make a fee
contingent upon an outcome, for example. He explained, "And, if
we're not requiring for 105 days afterwards, the outcome is
outside -- it would sweep up in the 105-day [requirement], but
it might not -- that's why you want to know right away."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said, "That just seems to me to be shading the
law to the point where you're cutting into the blood of the
statute."
MS. MILES said, "I'm shocked." She stated that an accrued
expenditure whose amount is contingent upon the outcome of the
election would be a serious concern under the campaign
disclosure law.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said that he interpreted Representative
Berkowitz's statement as brainstorming potential reasons [to
support Amendment 9], rather than [reporting] an actual
occurrence.
Number 0447
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded as follows:
The friendly component is, if we required immediate
disclosure of expenditures, just as we do for
contributions, that would satisfy the bulk of my
concern.
But going to what you're talking about, there's no
accrued expense until you've won. ... And I'm not
talking about someone who's selling you steaks - I'm
talking about political consultants who very
frequently, as part of their contract, say, "This is
the amount you owe us [and] there's a bonus if you
win." And that would get reported at 105 days. It's
not an accrued expense until the contingency
materializes.
MS. MILES stated her certainty that APOC has no idea that "this
arrangement exists between campaign consultants and candidates,"
and she said the commission would have serious concerns with
[such an arrangement]. She said the commission considers that
the day a consultant agrees to do something for a candidate is
the day [of accrual]. She indicated that charging winning and
losing candidates differently would be problematic.
Number 0567
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that large expenditures are
difficult to make in the final week before the election report,
because media are often "swamped up." Notwithstanding that, he
asked, "What difference does it make?" He continued as follows:
It's not an illegal contribution; it's not going to
influence what somebody does, because you're not going
to find out until after the election. And I just
don't think this 10-day report is (indisc.)
meaningful.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that that's why he's "coming
more and more to the idea" that immediate disclosure should be
required of expenditures, as it is of contributors. He said
that it can be critical for a candidate to be aware if his/her
component has purchased radio time, or has "brought in a hired
gun from Outside." He explained it is critical in the sense of
ensuring that the campaign gets waged in the most open fashion.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered his understanding that Representative
Berkowitz was referring to "the barrage at the end."
Number 0637
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that he would [ultimately]
offer an amendment that would "outlaw contingency kinds of
contracts or bonuses."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH responded, "It sounds like that may be outlawed
already."
Number 0750
MS. MILES offered the following explanation:
With a campaign ... consultant giving a bonus to a
candidate, I believe under the current law the
commission would look at that as a contribution from a
business and, therefore, prohibited.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG described the his understanding of the
scenario as follows:
The consultant says, "I'll charge you 10 grand and, if
you win, there'll be a bonus of another 5 to me." I
find that a tortured reasoning to get to a
contribution; I'd like it very explicit.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied, "I think, if you do that, you
work against challengers." He explained that, very frequently,
challengers have a difficult time raising money until they win.
And when they win, everybody wants to be their friend, and the
money comes flooding in. He stated, "A cash-strapped challenger
campaign frequently can't pay consultants or advisors until
after they've prevailed." He opined that [APOC] ought to allow
these kinds of contracts, and he added that he doesn't see the
problem with them.
Number 0862
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that he thinks the issue before the
committee is APOC and the disclosure of campaign-related
expenditures and contributions. He opined that allowing either
secret contributions or expenditures on the part of a party for
"whatever reason" is "totally anathema to the entire goal of
APOC" - that goal being to ensure that everyone is aware of all
contributions and expenditures related to campaigns.
Number 0960
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment
9. He explained that he would like to have the opportunity to
come back and offer "an amendment that requires extemporaneous
disclosure of expenditures in the last week, just as we do for
contributions."
Number 0980
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to adopt Amendment 10, which read
as follows [including a handwritten section notation]:
Page 1, line 5, following "limits;":
Insert "relating to unused campaign
contributions;"
Sec 18
Page 10, line 21:
Delete "(A) a political party;
(B) the state's general fund;
(C) a municipality of the state; or
(D) the federal government;"
Insert "(A) [A POLITICAL PARTY;
(B)] the state's general fund;
(B) [(C)] a municipality of the state; or
(C) [(D)] the federal government;"
Number 0988
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion purposes.
Number 0990
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that Amendment 10 as follows:
What I'm trying to do is clean up a lot of what I have
seen to be a problematic area, where elected officials
who have no real intention of running again amass
large war chests, and then turn ... their ... excess
contributions to the political party, sometimes then
gaining a contract from the political party to perform
services.
So, If we eliminate the possibility that an individual
- ... who subsequently decides not to run - can return
that money to the political party, then I think we
help ... do away with that kind of nefarious activity.
Again, this is an instance where we're elevating the
political parties over all other types of affiliations
- all of them. I mean, if you want to give your money
back, that's great. If you want to give your money to
government, that's fine. If you want to give it to
recognized charities, that's acceptable. But giving
it back to a political party invites all kinds of
self-dealing, and it's an ugly process. And I have
seen it, and it just does not reflect well on
politics.
Number 1160
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any discussion of Amendment
10.
Number 1187
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON maintained his objection.
Number 1202
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Lynn, Berkowitz,
Gruenberg, and Dahlstrom voted in favor of Amendment 10.
Representatives Seaton and Weyhrauch voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 10 was adopted by a vote of 4-2.
Number 1275
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 11, labeled
23-LS8005\A.34, Craver, 4/30/03, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided, including a handwritten section notation]:
Sec 19
Page 13, line 2:
Delete "described in"
Insert "the subject of"
Number 1278
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected for discussion purposes.
Number 1292
JUSTIN ROBERTS, Intern to Representative Max Gruenberg, Alaska
State Legislature, told the committee that the "current version
of the bill doesn't allow you to file a complaint if it was
described in an advisory opinion." He said that seems broad,
because a person "could have something described in advisory
opinion that isn't (indisc. - coughing) material subject of the
advisory opinion." Amendment 11 would require that [a person]
cannot file a complaint "if it was the subject of an advisory
opinion." He opined that it might be worthwhile to add in the
word "material".
Number 1349
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered a friendly amendment to his
Amendment 11, to add the word "material" between the words "the"
and "subject".
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected to the friendly amendment to
Amendment 11 for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that a person should not be able
to be prosecuted if he/she is seeking an advisory opinion and
acting in good faith on that advisory opinion. He said that
that was the intent of the language in the bill, and noted that
his amendment "makes certain that there's no question that it's
limited to that kind of a circumstance."
Number 1447
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Ms. Miles if the commission would
have any problem with "this change in language."
MS. MILES answered no.
Number 1469
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN withdrew his objection to the friendly
amendment to Amendment 11.
Number 1475
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any further objection to the
friendly amendment to Amendment 11. There being none, the
friendly amendment to Amendment 11 was adopted.
Number 1499
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN withdrew his objection to Amendment 11 [as
amended].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was further objection to
Amendment 11 [as amended]. There being none, Amendment 11 [as
amended] was adopted.
Number 1520
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 12, labeled
23-LS8005\A.35, Craver, 4/30/03, as follows [original
punctuation provided, including handwritten section notations]:
Sec 20
Page 15, line 5:
Delete "shall"
Insert "may"
Sec 20
Page 15, line 6:
Delete "shall"
Insert "may"
Number 1528
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the language in the
[proposed CS] basically gives the commission no discretion.
[The amendment being discussed would effect a sentence on page
15, beginning on line 3, of the proposed CS, which read as
follows:]
If the commission finds that the respondent has
engaged in or is about to engage in an act or practice
that constitutes or will constitute a violation of
this chapter or a regulation adopted under it, the
commission shall enter an order requiring the
violation to be ceased or to be remedied, and shall
assess civil penalties under AS 15.13.390.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he thinks the intent of
"the bill itself" was to give the commission the authority to do
what it needs to do "here." Therefore, he explained that's the
reason he thinks the words "shall" should be changed to "may".
Number 1579
MS. MILES said that although she has no objection to the change
in language, she indicated her understanding that the "shall"
language [in the proposed CS] was a result of the drafter's
trying to "expedite this complaint process." She noted that
[Amendment 12] would not effect the "shall" on [page 15], line
3, which she posited is good.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that [that "shall" is in
regard to] "a requirement of the time" and, therefore, is
"different."
MS. MILES indicated that she has no objection [to Amendment 11].
Number 1630
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that he thinks he likes the word
"shall", because if the commission finds that a respondent has
engaged, or is about to engage "in an act," he thinks it's good
to require the commission to enter an order "that it be ceased
or remedied." [The language in the proposed CS] gives the
commission clear direction. He also said that it protects the
candidate, because he/she will be given notice.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated his objection to Amendment 12.
Number 1677
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he thinks the "shall enter
an order" is absolutely appropriate; however, he stated that he
thinks mandatory assessment of [civil] penalties is
inappropriate and intrudes on the discretion of the commission.
He suggested [that the only change be that] the "shall" on line
6 be a "may".
Number 1723
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in regard to his first proposed change
[on line 5], noted, "The order could come after the campaign,
and it could be too late to enter, basically, an injunctive
order." He explained that that is one of the reasons he had
suggested that change in the language, "because it could be a
moot point for that election." He added that a simple
declaratory judgment may be sufficient.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, with respect to civil penalties, said
that that court, in a given circumstance, may find that there
was a technical violation only, and may decide, in a given case,
not to assess a civil penalty. He stated his intent is to give
the commission the authority to do "what it sees just in the
given days."
Number 1792
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Representative Gruenberg if he is agreeing
with Representative Berkowitz.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered no. He reiterated that he
thinks the language should read "may" in both places.
Number 1817
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ revealed that having read what is
actually in "the bill," he is "coming around to Representative
Gruenberg's perspective here." He turned to the language in the
CS that reads "about to engage in", and opined that it is
inappropriate that "the commission shall enter an order
requiring the violation to be ceased or to be remedied", because
he said that that conduct has not been started yet and therefore
there would be nothing to remedy. He said, "The language
doesn't parallel, and so that is problematic." To illustrate
his point, he asked how it would be possible to enter an order
for something that hasn't happened.
Number 1871
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that courts enter orders all the time to
prevent things that might happen. If offered examples. He said
it is a preemptive strike by a court, based on finding the fact.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he agrees; however, he stated that
that is not what is being said in [the language before the
committee]. He explained, "If you're about to engage in
something and you don't do it, [then] if it's brought to your
attention, why would there need to be an order for cessation or
remedy?" Neither is required, he said.
Number 1919
MS. MILES, in response to a question by Chair Weyhrauch, stated
that, usually, activities that are, perhaps, going to happen are
addressed in [an] advisory opinion process; whereas, "activities
of question that have occurred, are those that are (indisc)
under the complaint process." She said she doesn't believe that
[the commission] has ever had a complaint filed stating that a
candidate was "thinking about doing it."
Number 1940
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that, usually by the time the
commission "does this," [there's been] "a little lapse," and
quite often the campaign is over, and an injunction may be moot
by that time.
Number 1983
MS. MILES stated the following:
This is one of the primary provisions of this ...
proposed legislation that is most important to the
commission, that they be able - in working on the
complaint process, especially up in the expedited
process, and this is not the expedited process we're
working in here - ... to tell a candidate, and even a
provider, "Stop it now. It's not legal. Stop it."
Number 2032
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to the recent discussion,
asked [Ms. Miles] if [she, on behalf of the commission] has
changed her opinion, or feels that at least the first "shall" on
line 5 is helpful.
MS. MILES responded that after hearing Representative
Gruenberg's comments, having the commission enter an order that
a violation be ceased "when it's already over and done and not
happening," wouldn't make much sense; therefore, she said that
perhaps it's correct to change that to "may".
Number 2075
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated his intent to hold [Amendment 12] until
an attorney involved in the drafting could be asked to explain
her reasoning behind the language. He said his sense is that,
if there's no [objection] from the attorney, the committee would
most likely adopt [Amendment 12].
Number 2100
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, as a point of order, noted that there
is an objection [to Amendment 12] pending.
Number 2123
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment
12.
Number 2155
MS. MILES introduced Amendment 13, [an amendment proposed by
APOC], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 18, Lines 8-17, Section 25.
Sec.25. AS 24.45.116 is deleted in its entirety.
Sec. 24.45.116. [DISCLOSURE OF CONTRIBUTIONS. A
CIVIL LEAGUE OR ORGANIZATION SHALL REPORT THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FOR THE REPORTING
PERIOD AND FOR ANY CONTRIBUTION OVER $100, THE NAME OF
THE CONTRIBUTOR AND THE AMOUNT CONTRIBUTED. THE CIVIL
LEAGUE OR ORGANIZATION MAY ESTABLISH A SEPARATE FUND
TO ACCOUNT FOR RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES ARISING OUT
OF ACTIVITIES TO INFLUENCE LEGISLATIVE ACTION.
REPORTS SHALL BE MADE ON A FORM PROVIDED BY THE
COMMISSION ON FEBRUARY 10, APRIL 25, AND JULY 10 OF
EACH YEAR, LISTING CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED DURING THE
PERIOD THAT ENDED 10 DAYS EARLIER.]
MS. MILES told the committee that the commission considers
[Amendment 13] to be somewhat of a cleanup measure. She
explained that it [relates to] a section of the lobbying law
that years ago used to relate to tax credit for contributions to
political committees and candidates. She commented that many
legislators who were in office back then may recall that "your
first $100 that you gave to [a] political party, [a] political
action committee, or a candidate would be paid back by the state
at the end of the year."
MS. MILES noted that that language was amended in the early 90s
to take out the reference to the revenue, "but they left the
rest of it." Ms. Miles stated, "It does not fit within the
lobbying law, because civic leagues or organizations who retain
or employ lobbyists are required to report on a quarterly
schedule, under the lobbying law." She added that nothing in
the lobbying law requires them to report their membership or
funding separately, "unless they're not what we call, 'a bona
fide employer.'"
MS. MILES said that this is confusing language that sits in the
statute, and [APOC] doesn't know how to do anything with it.
She added, "We'd be much happier if it was just gone."
Number 2219
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 13.
Number 2250
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there were any comments of questions by
the committee. [No comments were offered.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his objection to [Amendment
13].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any further objection to
[adopting] Amendment 13. There being none, it was so ordered.
Number 2295
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 14, labeled
23-LS8005\A.16, Craver, 4/30/03, which read as follows:
Page 19, lines 7 - 21:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 27. AS 24.45.171(8) is amended to read:
(8) "lobbyist" means a person who
(A) engages [A PERSON WHO IS EMPLOYED AND
RECEIVES PAYMENTS, OR WHO CONTRACTS FOR ECONOMIC
CONSIDERATION, INCLUDING REIMBURSEMENT FOR REASONABLE
TRAVEL AND LIVING EXPENSES, TO COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY OR
THROUGH THE PERSON'S AGENTS WITH ANY PUBLIC OFFICIAL
FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING LEGISLATIVE OR
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IF A SUBSTANTIAL OR REGULAR
PORTION OF THE ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH THE PERSON
RECEIVES CONSIDERATION IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INFLUENCING LEGISLATIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION; OR
(B) A PERSON WHO REPRESENTS ONESELF AS
ENGAGING] in the [INFLUENCING OF LEGISLATIVE OR
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AS A] business, occupation, or
profession of influencing legislative or
administrative action; or
(B) receives wages or other economic
consideration, including reimbursement of travel and
living expenses, to communicate directly with any
public official
(i) for the express purpose of influencing
legislative or administrative action; and
(ii) during more than four hours in any 30-
day period in one calendar year;"
Number 2312
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected [for discussion purposes].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 14 would
impose a four-hour rule, in relation to anybody who lobbies for
more than four hours in a 30-day period. He also noted that the
proposed amendment would delete language on page 19 [of the
proposed CS], which would "put the current regulation into
statutes."
Number 2372
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH proposed a friendly amendment to Amendment 14,
which would delete all of Section 27.
Number 2381
[The committee took a brief at-ease, during which time the sound
was turned off, but the tape kept rolling for about 20 seconds
without recording. No testimony was lost.]
Number 2385
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the effect of adopting the
friendly amendment to Amendment 14 would be to maintain the
status quo. The commission, through current regulation, has
made the four hours in a 30-day period [stipulation].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that, in adopting the friendly amendment
to Amendment 14, several other amendments would be made moot.
Number 2450
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he accepts the friendly
amendment to Amendment 14.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, in response to questions by Representative
Lynn, clarified what the effect of adopting the friendly
amendment would be. He also confirmed Representative Lynn's
assertion that there will be "another bill in the hopper where
we can vote on that."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to the friendly
amendment to Amendment 14. There being none, [the friendly
amendment to Amendment 14 was adopted].
Number 2485
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to adopting
Amendment 14, as amended. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
Number 2504
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified for the record that [Section 27]
had been [deleted], because it would be "dealt with in other
legislation."
Number 2533
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, in response to an observation by Representative
Gruenberg, clarified that the following amendments in the
committee packet would not be offered: 14-A, 15, 15-A, and 16.
[Amendment 15-A was ultimately offered.]
Number 2620
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, at the request of Chair Weyhrauch,
moved to adopt Amendment 17, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Financial disclosure
by legislators, public members of the committee, and
legislative directors.
Delete changes in Section 28 to the income levels that
trigger financial disclosure.
Section 28
Page 20, Line 1 - delete changes.
Page 20, Line 19 - delete changes
Justification:
Allowing legislators to receive unreported income up
to $10,000 may lead to backdoor campaign donations
through this unreported income. While $10,000 may not
necessarily buy a legislator, the public has the right
to know from whom our officials are receiving any
income.
Additionally, disclosure of this type of information
is important for public information regarding the
motivation of legislators and proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that this amendment would
make changes to page 20, lines 1 and 19, by removing the $10,000
amounts and restoring the $1,000 amounts. He noted that
Representative Seaton addresses this issue in [Amendment 17-A].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he too has addressed the issue in
"the following amendment."
Number 2703
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated an objection to Amendment 17, in
order to move on to Amendment 17-A.
Number 2720
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment
17, stating that if outside interests want to participate, they
ought to be present.
Number 2729
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 17-A, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided, including some
handwritten changes]:
Financial Disclosure Sections
Sec 28
Page 20, line 1,
Delete $10,000 Insert $4,000
Sec 30
Page 20, line 19,
Delete $10,000 Insert $4,000
Sec 30
Page 20, line 22,
Delete $500 Insert $250
Sec 30
Page 21, line 7,
Delete $10,000 Insert $4,000
Sec 30
Page 21, line 10,
Delete $10,000 Insert $4,000
Sec 30
Page 21, line 14,
Delete $10,000 Insert $4,000
Sec 30
Page 21, line 17,
Delete $10,000 Insert $4,000
Number 2735
Representative HOLM objected.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated he understands that the reason
for the change from $1,000 [as proposed in the CS] is in regard
to [inflation]; however, he opined that the $10,000 proposed in
Amendment 17-A is too high. He stated that he thinks $4,000 is
a reasonable amount of money, which is why he proposed that
amount for [page 20], lines 1 and 19.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that if [a candidate] is receiving
over $250 from somebody in the form of a gift, then it ought to
be reported, which is why he is proposing that the amount on
line 22 be $250. He explained that the other $4,000 amounts
that he proposed equal four times the current limit, which he
said is reasonable [compared to the proposed increase to
$10,000].
Number 2800
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested that each amount in Amendment
17-A be dealt with separately.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH agreed to that. [Subsequently, 17-A was
separated into Amendments 17-A-1 through 17-A-7.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, turned to [Amendment 17-A-1], which
read:
Sec 28
Page 20, line 1,
Delete $10,000 Insert $4,000
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the amount suggested by
Representative Seaton [in the amendment] is $4,000, whereas
Representative Gruenberg's own Amendment 17-B proposes that
amount be $2,000. [Amendment 17-B - never offered - simply
deleted "$10,000" and inserted "$2,000" on page 20, line 1.]
Representative Gruenberg said he is not "hung up on either one."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested changing the $4,000 to
$2,500.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered Representative Berkowitz's
suggestion as a friendly amendment to [Amendment 17-A-1].
Number 2877
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM questioned how various amounts are arrived
at.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH indicated that [the selection of numbers] is an
intuitive process. He asked Ms. Miles when the $1,000 amount
was first put into statute.
Number 2910
MS. MILES said she doesn't know the exact year; however, she
said she thinks that the $1,000 on line 1, which relates to the
amount that legislators and legislative directors must disclose,
was "put in '92 or '94." Regarding amounts related to the
public officials' financial disclosure, she noted that while
legislators were only reporting income over $1,000, all the
other public officials were "still reporting income over $100,
until 1996." She added, "And then we pulled this in along with
campaign finance reform, and got executive branch officials at
the $1,000 level, too."
Number 2990
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated an objection to the friendly amendment
[to Amendment 17-A-1].
TAPE 03-50, SIDE B
Number 2920
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated for the record that although he doesn't
have a problem with $2,500, he also doesn't have a problem with
$4,000.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH withdrew his objection. He said, "I think it's
going to fail, so having said that, I withdraw my objection with
$2,500 and let's move on to the next one."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected [to the friendly amendment to
Amendment 17-A-1].
Number
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG revealed that this particular provision
has a great impact on him personally. He mentioned the public's
right to know and noted that he has a law firm with three
lawyers in it. He said that his law firm used to have to report
"every client over $100." He indicated that the amount has gone
up to $1,000. He said, "Every client from the entire law firm
has to be reported, and if you look at my APOC reports, you'll
see pages of these things." He opined, "$4,000 would eliminate
quite a few; $2,500, I think, strikes a balance between the
public's right to know and the client's right to privacy."
Number 2854
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM removed his objection [to the friendly
amendment to Amendment 17-A-1].
Number 2843
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated that, there being no objection, the
friendly amendment to [Amendment 17-A-1] was adopted.
Number 2820
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ proposed a "sweeping amendment" to
change the remaining amounts of $4,000 in Amendment [17-A] to
$2,500.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that he probably would not
have an objection to that; however, he said, "When we get down
to the gifts and stuff, that's somewhat different."
Number 2740
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ restated his friendly amendment to
Amendments 17-A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6, and A-7, to delete "$4,000"
and insert "$2,500".
Number 2707
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he has no objection to that friendly
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his preference is to take [the
friendly amendments within Amendment 17-A] separately. He
stated that he has no objection to A-2 [as previously
described].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to changing
$4,000 to $2,500 in Amendment 17-A-2, which read as follows:
Sec 30
Page 20, line 19,
Delete $10,000 Insert $4,000
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 2645
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH turned to Amendment 17-A-3, which read as
follows:
Sec 30
Page 20, line 22,
Delete $500 Insert $250
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to adopting
Amendment 17-3-A. There being none, it was so ordered.
Number 2674
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to changing
$4,000 to $2,500 in Amendment 17-A-4, which read as follows:
Sec 30
Page 21, line 7,
Delete $10,000 Insert $4,000
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 2659
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to changing
$4,000 to $2,500 in Amendment 17-A-5, which read as follows:
Sec 30
Page 21, line 10,
Delete $10,000 Insert $4,000
Number 2648
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected. He stated that he thinks [$2,500]
would be an awfully small amount for a loan or a loan guarantee.
Furthermore, he indicated that $4,000 [would also not be
sufficient]. He stated that he would prefer that the number be
$10,000.
Number 2623
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested [a second friendly amendment
to Amendment 17-A-5, which would change the $4,000 to $5,000],
because he said he thinks that $10,000 is pretty high, while
$4,000 is a little low.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM withdrew his objection [to the first
friendly amendment that would change $4,000 to $2,500 in
Amendment 17-A-5].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to the second
friendly amendment that would change $4,000 to $5,000 in
Amendment 17-A-5. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
[The separate consideration of Representative Berkowitz's
previous suggestion for a sweeping amendment to change $4,000 to
$2,500 was not addressed by the committee for Amendments 17-A-6
and 17-A-7.]
Number 2581
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH turned to Amendment 17-A-6, which read as
follows:
Sec 30
Page 21, line 14,
Delete $10,000 Insert $4,000
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt an amendment to
Amendment 17-A-6, which would change $4,000 to $5,000. There
being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 2569
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH turned to [Amendment 17-A-7], which read as
follows:
Sec 30
Page 21, line 17,
Delete $10,000 Insert $4,000
Number 2560
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested an amendment to Amendment 17-
A-7, which would change $4,000 to $5,000.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM concurred with Representative Gruenberg's
suggestion.
There being no objection, the amendment to Amendment 17-A-7 was
adopted.
Number 2520
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, upon Representative Holm withdrawing his
previously stated objection, asked if there was any further
objection to adopting Amendment 17-A [as amended]. There being
none, it was so ordered.
Number 2510
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG announced that he would not be offering
Amendments 17-B or 18.
Number 2483
The meeting was recessed at 10:54 a.m. to a call of the chair.
TAPE 03-51, SIDE A
Number 0001
[Due to technical difficulty, the audio tape was not recording
for the first minute, but no testimony was lost.]
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH called the meeting back to order at 7:50 p.m.
Present at the call back to order were Representatives Holm,
Dahlstrom, Lynn, Berkowitz, and Weyhrauch. Representatives
Seaton and Gruenberg arrived as the meeting was in progress.
Number 0050
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to adopt Amendment 19, labeled
23-GH1090\D.1, Craver, 5/5/03, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 9, following "misconduct;":
Insert "prohibiting persons performing quasi-
judicial functions from participating in partisan
politics;"
Page 20, following line 15:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 30. AS 39.05 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 39.05.190. Quasi-judicial functions. A
person performing a quasi-judicial function may not
take an active part in the management of a political
party above the district level."
Page 22, line 29:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 23, line 6:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 35"
Page 23, line 8:
Delete "Section 36"
Insert "Section 37"
Page 23, line 9:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 39"
Number 0055
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected for discussion purposes.
Number 0060
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he thinks people who are
performing quasi-judicial functions for the state ought to
abstain from active partisan activity, which is what [revised
Amendment 19] would ensure.
Number 0073
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked, for example, if a commissioner of the
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission who performs a quasi-
judicial activity "in acting like a judge" would be refrained
from writing a fundraising letter for a political candidate.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ answered no.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH added, "But they would be otherwise ...
restrained from doing such a letter, wouldn't you agree though,
under, sort of, judicial canons and ethics?"
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ answered yes. He explained that this
[amendment] is a compromise, because his optimal [amendment
would include] "anyone who's got anything hyphenated-judicial in
it would be bound by the judicial canons, but that seemed a
little bit much." He added that he'd be willing to go in that
direction. He stated, "I think that when you sit in judgment on
people, people should have every expectation that the decisions
rendered will be above partisan suspicion."
Number 0183
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH remarked that when he read this amendment he had
thought that the canons of judicial ethics would "cover this."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ offered his understanding that people
who perform quasi-judicial functions are not always bound by the
judicial canon.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked, "Is this germane, Representative
Berkowitz?"
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ answered, "If the whole bill is about
how to protect the integrity of campaign finance, it's certainly
germane."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if the amendment would prohibit a judge or
a commissioner of any commission that hears appeals, from
contributing to a campaign.
Number 0280
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ answered that [it would prohibit them]
from actively taking part in management of a political party.
He added, "If you feel that it would be appropriate to descend
to the level of even contributing, ... I think that's the
direction I would prefer to head in."
Number 0304
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if Section 34 pertains to a perceived
problem of some kind that might be faced.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ answered yes. In response to a follow-
up question by Representative Lynn, he mentioned that there was
a potential issue with the personnel board, which [no longer
exists], because the individual in question chose not to accept
the nomination. He noted, however, that the problem certainly
remains with the Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission.
Number 0485
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that when he was campaigning, there
was a judge who supported him verbally, but couldn't contribute,
couldn't "say anything actively," or "come out publicly." He
asked, "Is that what we're talking about here?"
Number 0520
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ answered that it's the same theory, but
judges are bound by the judicial code of ethics, whereas quasi-
judicial officials are not similarly bound.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated that he has a problem with the "very
broad nature of this," because he said he thinks that "those
kind of people should be bound by canons of judicial conduct."
He referred to his previously stated example of the
commissioner. He noted that, "Ultimately, when reported to
(indisc.), had to recuse [themselves], because they should not
have been involved." He indicated that putting into statute
"what we have here" may be difficult to define later. He stated
that he is opposed to [revised Amendment 19].
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Chair Weyhrauch if he was
suggesting that he modify the amendment so that a person
performing a quasi-judicial function is bound by the judicial
code of ethics, "period."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH surmised that Representative Berkowitz just
restated the obvious, because "they are."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he does not believe they
are, which he said is part of the problem, because they should
be.
Number 0650
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH emphasized his concern in "talking about that in
this bill," where the legislation deals with APOC, lobbyists,
and campaign contributions.
Number 0680
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Chair Weyhrauch to clarify his
concern, because it had sounded like he was in support of the
issue.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH responded, "Partly, I am." He continued as
follows:
I mean that's the concern I have. But, partly, I
think the persons who do perform quasi-judicial
functions should be bound by the canons of judicial
conduct, and so I have no problem with that. I mean,
do we say that as a policy statement, or do we say
that as a resolution? Do we say that -- I mean it
already ... says that in the canons of judicial
conduct. Do we a statute to repeat what the canons
say?
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said yes.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked, "Then why not adopt the entire code of
judicial conduct?"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that that's beyond the scope
of the bill.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said, "That's what I'm concerned about here."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that this [amendment] is at
least a start in the right direction. He added, "It would
certainly be part of any bill, and this is well within the scope
of this bill."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered a friendly amendment to [the
portion of Amendment 19 relating to Section 30], after "may not
take an active part in the management of a political party", to
insert "or a political campaign".
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he would accept that.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that he intended that the
added language should actually be added after the words "above
the district level".
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested an amendment to the friendly
amendment to Amendment 19, deleting "above the district level".
Thus that portion of [Amendment 19] would read:
A person performing a quasi-judicial function may not
take an active part in the management of a political
party or a political campaign.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reminded the committee that there was an
objection to the friendly amendment to revised Amendment 19. He
asked if there was further discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the committee could "get the idea
of the breadth of these quasi-judicial functions."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that he would have to look at the
statutes, but a number of boards are designated quasi-judicial
in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if that would include the Board of
Fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he doesn't know if the Board of
Fisheries would be included.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he thinks that every board that hears some
sort of appeal is "a quasi-judicial function."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that if the Board of Fisheries is
quasi-judicial, then he would hope that the members of that
board are not participating in political campaigns, for example.
Number 1000
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said, "You're talking about almost every board
and commission." He listed several examples.
Number 1016
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, for the benefit of those members of
the committee who are not attorneys, explained that
administrative agencies perform the following two functions:
quasi-legislative, where the agencies adopt regulations; and
quasi-judicial, where the agencies adjudicate disputes. The
disputes may be public or private, he noted. He stated that the
question is whether the board is acting as "a little
legislature," or as a judicial tribunal.
Number 1146
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, regarding "or a political campaign",
asked if that is the "active part in the management of a
political campaign." He asked if the intent is to say, "or
anything in a political campaign."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained, "The phrase is intended to
be after 'in the management of'." The meaning would be "in the
management of a political party or in the management of a
political campaign."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for a second amendment to the
friendly amendment to Amendment 19 to "put that wording in
there," in order to avoid confusion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that the second amendment to
the friendly amendment to [Amendment 19] would add, in between
"or" and "a political campaign." the words "in the management
of". Thus it would read:
A person performing a quasi-judicial function may not
take an active part in the management of a political
party or in the management of a political campaign.
Number 1210
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to adopting the
second amendment to the friendly amendment to [Amendment 19].
There being none, it was so ordered.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to adopting the
friendly amendment [as amended], which he clarified would change
Amendment 19 to read as follows:
A person performing a quasi-judicial function may not
take an active part in the management of a political
party or in the management of a political campaign.
[There was no audible objection.]
Number 1241
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Berkowitz,
Gruenberg, and Seaton voted in favor of the friendly amendment
[as amended] to Amendment 19. Representatives Holm, Dahlstrom,
Lynn, and Weyhrauch voted against it. Therefore, the friendly
amendment [as amended] to Amendment 19 failed by a vote of 3-4.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH turned to the original Amendment 19.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH again read the portion relating to Section 30 as
follows:
A person performing a quasi-judicial function may not
take an active part in the management of a political
party above the district level.
Number 1460
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if a person in a quasi-judicial
function can be a registered lobbyist. He said it seems like if
the committee does not want that to be the case, then "if we add
that in here, that ties it into this bill, as far as lobbying."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH responded that the problem he has with that is
that he has had countless numbers of lobbyists "up here" who
perform quasi-judicial functions for the State of Alaska,
pushing their positions on bills effecting their agencies. He
stated that Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission is a prime
example. He added that he is not sure that "we should put that
in statute."
Number 1500
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg, Seaton,
and Berkowitz voted in favor of Amendment 19. Representatives
Holm, Dahlstrom, Lynn, and Weyhrauch voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 19 failed by a vote of 3-4.
Number 1550
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered a conceptual amendment to Amendment 19.
He said:
I would like, Representative Berkowitz, if we could
stick on this amendment ... and discuss the fact that
persons performing quasi-judicial functions should
adhere to the canons of judicial conduct as it may
apply to them in their position.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "I would accept that."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated the following:
I think the people who do perform quasi-judicial
functions should adhere, if those necessarily apply to
their position. That implies a case-by-case
application of those canons to their position as a
judicial officer. And I agree with you that people
should have a trust in the integrity of the process,
and that, if there is evidence that somehow activity
in a political campaign would impugn the integrity of
the judicial-making process or [in] anyway sway their
ability to be impartial as a decision maker, we don't
want them on a case.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ reiterated that he would accept that.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that his conceptual amendment to
Amendment 19 would read as follows:
Persons performing quasi-judicial functions must
adhere to the canons of judicial conduct as it may
apply to their position as a quasi-judicial officers
of the state.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to the
conceptual amendment to Amendment 19.
Number 1603
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes. He
asked, "Would that include prohibiting them from managing a
political campaign?"
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH replied that he is not sure.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that the judicial
canon [regarding this issue] is "canon number five," which
specifically says that "they may not engage in any partisan
political activity." He read, "shall refrain from inappropriate
political activity". He stated that he would be prepared to
support that if it included a prohibition against managing
political candidates.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reiterated that it would be a case-by-case
analysis, and he said he would be reluctant to apply it in "a
blanket ... position like that."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON questioned if it would be appropriate for
APOC to administer canons or judicial conduct. He stated that
he thinks this is outside of the realm of the bill.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he is concerned about that and indicated
that he is "torn."
Number 1725
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that he had spoken with Marla
Greenstein, the executive director of [the Alaska Commission on
Judicial Conduct], who related that she is not anxious to be
involved in determining violations of the canons for quasar-
judicial officers or hearing officers. He said, "I support that
in concept - what you're saying - but we're going to have to
have an enforcement mechanism and that sort of a thing." He
explained that is why he likes the way Representative
Berkowitz's original amendment read, because it was very
specific. He stated that it would be fairly easy for APOC to
say, "Well, you can't be involved in the management of a
political party." Representative Gruenberg reiterated his idea
to also include "management of a political campaign". He said
that that doesn't require interpretation of "this body of law."
Number 1847
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH withdrew his conceptual amendment [to Amendment
19]. He stated his intention to speak with the chair [of the
House Judiciary Standing Committee] when Ms. Miles is before
that committee to discuss "whether it's appropriate to put in
this or not."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that if Chair Weyhrauch does
that, he would ask that "we revisit the amendment itself, and
put the amendment in, and let [the House Judiciary Standing
Committee] take it out if they disagree."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH responded, "That's correct. I think that's
fine, and I will do that." In response to a suggestion by
Representative Gruenberg, he clarified that he would ask the
House Judiciary Standing Committee chair to add this [conceptual
amendment] in to its version, rather than rescind the action
just taken by the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
[After much discussion, it was determined by the committee that
Amendments 20 through 24 would not be offered.]
Number 2000
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH turned to the amendment labeled 22-LS8005\A.19,
Craver, 4/30/03, which read as follows [including handwritten
section notations]:
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "and the limits in lobbyists' campaign
contributions to candidates"
Sec 13
Page 7, line 21, through page 8, line 1:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Sec 15
Page 8, lines 14 - 29:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 14. AS 15.13.074(g) is amended to read:
(g) An individual required to register as a
lobbyist under AS 24.45 may not make a contribution to
a candidate for the legislature at any time the
individual is subject to the registration requirement
under AS 24.45 and for one year after the date of the
individual's initial registration or its renewal.
However, the individual may make a contribution under
this section to a candidate for the legislature in a
district in which the individual is eligible to vote
or will be eligible to vote on the date of the
election. An individual who is subject to the
restrictions of this subsection shall report to the
commission, on a form provided by the commission, each
contribution made while required to register as a
lobbyist under AS 24.45. Upon request of the
commission, the information required under this
subsection shall be submitted electronically. This
subsection does not apply to a representational
lobbyist as defined in regulations of the commission."
Sec 35
Page 22, line 24:
Delete "sec. 20"
Insert "sec. 19"
Sec 36
Page 22, line 29:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 36"
Sec 37
Page 23, line 5:
Delete "sec. 20"
Insert "sec. 19"
Sec 37
Page 23, line 6:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 33"
Sec 38
Page 23, line 8:
Delete "Section 36"
Insert "Section 35"
Sec 39
Page 23, line 9:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 37"
Number 2068
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered an amended version of the
foregoing as Amendment 6, with only the portion left that would
delete Section 13 by deleting all material on page 7, line 21,
through page 8, line 1. [The other portions of Amendment 6 had
already been addressed by Representative Seaton's Amendment 7,
which was previously adopted by the committee.]
Number 2099
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM objected for discussion purposes.
Number 2157
MR. ROBERTS explained that deleting Section 13 would mean that a
candidate who's filed with the commission can't solicit a
contribution from someone who's registered as a lobbyist, if the
contribution violates subsection (g) [of AS 14.13.074].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 6 is a
conforming amendment to delete the section of the bill that
would delete subsection (g).
Number 2343
[Representative Berkowitz moved to adopt a friendly amendment to
delete Section 13, but Representative Gruenberg clarified that
that's what Amendment 6 does.]
Number 2399
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM withdrew her objection.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the committee had just adopted
[Amendment 6], which deleted Section 13.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to adopt Amendment 9-A, labeled
23-GH1090\D.2, Craver, 5/5/03, which read as follows:
Page 10, following line 8:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 13. AS 15.13.110(b) is amended to read:
(b) Each contribution or expenditure that
exceeds $250 and that is made within nine days of the
election shall be reported to the commission by date,
amount, and contributor or payee within 24 hours of
receipt or expenditure by the candidate, group,
campaign treasurer, or deputy campaign treasurer.
Each contribution to or expenditure by a nongroup
entity for the purpose of influencing the outcome of
an election that exceeds $250 and that is made within
nine days of the election shall be reported to the
commission by date, amount, and contributor or payee
within 24 hours of receipt or expenditure by the
nongroup entity."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, line 24:
Delete "sec. 20"
Insert "sec. 21"
Page 22, line 29:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 23, line 5:
Delete "sec. 20"
Insert "sec. 21"
Page 23, line 6:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 35"
Page 23, line 8:
Delete "Section 36"
Insert "Section 37"
Page 23, line 9:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 39"
[Amendment 9-A related to a Version D of HB 157, which was never
before the committee and is not in committee packets; therefore,
the page and line numbers listed on it do not match the page and
line numbers in the CS before the committee.]
Number 2546
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected for discussion purposes.
Number 2559
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that [candidates] have to report
contributions over $250 within "the last week." He noted, "What
the other section of the bill does is remove the final report.
Instead of from 10 days after a campaign ends to 105 days after
a campaign ends." He continued:
One of the concerns that I have is, you don't know if
a campaign is flooding the airwaves, or what it's
doing with its money. And I think - in the interest
of disclosure - just as we want to know who's putting
money into a campaign, it's important to know what
kind of money is going out, as well, especially since
we're lifting the 10-day report at the end. And
that's all this does is make sure that expenditures as
well as contributions are covered ... when the 24-hour
rule kicks in the campaign.
Number 2601
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked Representative Berkowitz if his
intent was that "both of these would be included in the same
report," rather than two separate reports.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ answered yes.
Number 2628
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Representative Berkowitz why he
thinks it is important to know expenditures.
Number 2630
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied that it is for similar reasons
why a person would want to know who's making contributions: to
ensure that the campaigns are transparent. He said, "We lose
that transparency by eliminating the 10-day final report."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his understanding that the reason
to require contributions to be reported is to find out who
influences a campaign, whereas trying to find out the
expenditures of a campaign is to try to find out an opponents
strategy in a campaign. He stated that he does not think [the
latter] is the appropriate purpose of APOC. For that reason, he
said, he is going to oppose "that section of this."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented that Representative Seaton's
point is a legitimate one. He noted that nobody at the
committee table has had an opponent in recent memory who has
guessed their strategy and bested it.
Number 2718
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM noted that those who campaign buy their time
"way up front"; therefore, people can find out where the money
has been spent. He said, "Almost without exception, most of us
don't carry anything down to the end and then dump it all in."
Number 2755
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ revealed that during his last campaign,
his opponent was able to secure radio time within the last week
that was not available to Representative Berkowitz prior to that
point. He commented that if he hadn't had his [supporters]
listening to the radio and calling to ask how that happened, he
wouldn't have known. As it was, he continued, he was barely
able to get "the equal time that is required."
Number 2782
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN expanded upon Representative Seaton's point
by stating that there needs to be transparency regarding how
somebody may be trying to influence a candidate with a
contribution; however, he opined that it's nobody's business how
he spends his own campaign money to influence his own campaign.
Number 2800
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON turned to Amendment 9-A and noted that
[subsection (b)] seems to include underlined [language] that is
divided into two. He noted that the last two references to
expenditures are in regard to "a nongroup entity" influencing a
campaign. Regarding those two references, he said, "I can
understand it is good to know if it's not the campaign making
expenditures - that I can agree with - because that is something
that is a legitimate interest of the voters to be able to know."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt an amendment [to Amendment
9-A] to strike the first two occurrences of the bold and
underlined words "or expenditure".
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he would "take that as a friendly"
[amendment to Amendment 9-A].
Number 2846
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected.
Number 2860
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton, Lynn, and
Berkowitz voted in favor of the amendment to Amendment 9-A.
Representatives Holm, Dahlstrom, Gruenberg, and Weyhrauch voted
against it. Therefore, the amendment to Amendment 9-A failed by
a vote of 3-4.
Number 2930
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reminded the committee that there was an
objection pending on Amendment 9-A.
Number 2939
[The following is not entirely on tape, but was taken from the
committee secretary's roll call sheet:]
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Dahlstrom,
Berkowitz, and Gruenberg voted in favor of Amendment 9-A.
Representatives Holm, Seaton, Lynn, and Weyhrauch voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 9-A failed by a vote of 3-4.
TAPE 03-51, SIDE B
Number 2938
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that the lobbying provisions
in [the CS] are contained generally in Section 27 [on page 19,
lines 7-21]. He noted that Amendments 14, 14-A, 15, 15-A, and
16 relate to this subject.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:40 p.m. to 8:41 p.m.
Number 2894
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that he wanted to adopt
Amendment 14 [as it had read before being amended and adopted],
because it would put current APOC regulation into statute.
Number 2866
The committee took an at-ease from 8:43 p.m. to 8:46 p.m.
Number 2750
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to rescind the [previous] action
of the committee in adopting Amendment 14 [as amended], which
will put Section 27 back in the bill.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, upon hearing no objection, announced that the
committee had rescinded its action in adopting Amendment 14, as
amended. He also announced that the amendment labeled, 23-
LS8005\A.16, Craver, 4/30/03, which had been called Amendment
14, would be called Amendment 14.1.
Number 2726
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 14.1, labeled
23-LS8005\A.16, Craver, 4/30/03, which read as follows:
Page 19, lines 7 - 21:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 27. AS 24.45.171(8) is amended to read:
(8) "lobbyist" means a person who
(A) engages [A PERSON WHO IS EMPLOYED AND
RECEIVES PAYMENTS, OR WHO CONTRACTS FOR ECONOMIC
CONSIDERATION, INCLUDING REIMBURSEMENT FOR REASONABLE
TRAVEL AND LIVING EXPENSES, TO COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY OR
THROUGH THE PERSON'S AGENTS WITH ANY PUBLIC OFFICIAL
FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING LEGISLATIVE OR
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IF A SUBSTANTIAL OR REGULAR
PORTION OF THE ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH THE PERSON
RECEIVES CONSIDERATION IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INFLUENCING LEGISLATIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION; OR
(B) A PERSON WHO REPRESENTS ONESELF AS
ENGAGING] in the [INFLUENCING OF LEGISLATIVE OR
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AS A] business, occupation, or
profession of influencing legislative or
administrative action; or
(B) receives wages or other economic
consideration, including reimbursement of travel and
living expenses, to communicate directly with any
public official
(i) for the express purpose of influencing
legislative or administrative action; and
(ii) during more than four hours in any 30-day period
in one calendar year;"
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained as follows:
What this does is put the current regulation into
statute. And, as you can see at the top of page 2,
this allows not more than four hours in any 30-day
period in one calendar year, and if you go above that,
then you must register as a lobbyist.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that he thinks the current [four-
hour limit] is too short a time to be reasonable, and said he
thinks the proposed APOC language of 16 hours is a reasonable
amount of time. He concluded, "And so I would support us
leaving the language in the bill."
Number 2674
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that 16 hours is a tremendous
amount of time, because [it is time spent by lobbyists in]
"face-to-face, non-testimonial lobbying, with either a
legislator or staff, within one 30-day period." He said he
would certainly be open to negotiations regarding [the time
limit].
Number 2626
TAMMY KEMPTON, Regulation of Lobbying, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), Department of Administration, addressed the
issue of testimony [by lobbyists] in front of committees, as
follows:
That's been an on-again/off-again thing since 1976.
If you read the statute, it says, "a person who is not
paid and confines their ... lobbying activities to
testimony before public committees is exempt from the
lobbying law." Therefore, someone who is paid to sit
here and talk to a committee - that's part of the
lobbying and it counts towards the 4 hours or the 16
hours, or the how-ever-many hours it is.
Now, years ago, an [attorney general] informally said,
"Gee, that 'and' should be read as an 'or'." In the
last year, we did a lot of research on it, and they
have now agreed with us - but not in a formal opinion,
although one has been requested - that, yes, in fact
because it is [a] conjunction "and", not [a]
disjunction "or", and because the [House Judiciary
Standing Committee] that heard it in 1976 plainly said
that they wanted it to be an "or" -- well, it went to
the Senate. The Senate changed it to "and". The free
conference committee accepted the "and". So the
[attorney generals] say, "Yeah, it's conjunctive."
Number 2510
MS. KEMPTON, in response to a question by Representative Lynn,
explained that the four hours only applies to an employees who
are being paid by their employers to "come down here."
Currently, she noted, those employees can talk to [legislators]
for four hours in a 30-day period, without becoming subject to
the lobbying law. If they go over the four hours, she added,
they can certainly continue to talk or testify; however, they
would need to register with [APOC].
Number 2470
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN stated that, basically, no one sits before a
committee to testify unless he/she is invited to do so by the
chair of that committee. Therefore, he questioned why someone
would have to register if he/she has been invited by the chair
to sit in [the witness] chair. Furthermore, he indicated that
it would be absurd if he and his staff would have to buy
stopwatches to use the minute [a lobbyist] comes through their
door, for example.
Number 2455
MS. KEMPTON clarified that what is being discussed is a
regulation that has been in place since 1976, and appeared to be
working fine until this year, "when this was brought up as a
problem." She noted, "In fact, our commissioners thought it was
a problem before it came before the legislature, and they were
already discussing changing it to 16 hours." She stated that,
currently, employees are allowed a certain amount of time before
they need to register; however, it is up to the legislature to
decide [the limits]. She pointed out that [those limits] are
set by time, or perhaps by expenditures. She noted that the
law, from 1949 until 1976, said that people who were employees
being paid to talk to the legislature had to register before
being allowed to do so.
Number 2381
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked how the [request] for a change came
about.
MS. KEMPTON responded that Larry Wood was newly appointed as a
commissioner. She noted that he used to be the deputy chief
counsel for [Alyeska Pipeline Service Company] and, in that
position, he was an employee lobbyist who had to register. She
explained that Mr. Wood was therefore already aware of the four-
hour [limit] and thought it was too short. This fall, she said,
there was a lawsuit filed regarding the four hours being too
short.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN questioned how he is supposed to keep track
of how long a lobbyist is present in his office.
Number 2304
MS. KEMPTON, in response to questions by Representative
Berkowitz and Chair Weyhrauch, clarified that a lobbyist who is
sitting in the committee room or standing out in the hall would
not count that time as lobbying, unless he/she was engaged in
direct communication with legislators, legislative staff, or
public officials. She added that the statutes define who
[public officials] are.
Number 2252
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if there had been any indication
that four hours was inadequate, before the time when individuals
had to register [as lobbyists].
MS. KEMPTON noted that last year there was an official complaint
filed against somebody for lobbying without being registered.
She stated that that's something that almost never happens. She
clarified that [APOC] gets inquiries, but not actual official
complaints. The person being investigated, she said, never
brought up the issue - as a defense - that four hours wasn't
enough. In response to a follow-up question by Representative
Berkowitz, she said that it is public record, and revealed the
name of the [lobbyist] as Frank Prewitt, who was lobbying for
Cornell Companies for the Whittier private prison.
Number 2195
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there were any further comments
regarding Amendment 14.1.
Number 2185
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered clarification that [Amendment]
14.1 would [return the limit to] four hours, "instead of the 16
... which we reinstated."
Number 2160
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Berkowitz and
Gruenberg voted in favor of Amendment 14.1. Representatives
Dahlstrom, Lynn, Holm, Seaton, and Weyhrauch voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 14.1 failed by a vote of 2-5.
Number 2121
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 15-A, labeled
23-LS8005\A.22, Craver, 4/30/03, which read as follows
[including a handwritten section notation]:
Sec 27
Page 19, line 17:
Delete "16"
Insert "eight"
Number 2107
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected.
Number 2088
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that Amendment 15-A deals with Section
27.
Number 2053
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that he's "heard this debate go
round and round," and he understands the difficulties in
assessing hours. He posited that if there is a clearer time
period, it might resolve some of the problems, and he asked if
that is a fair assumption. For example, for any period during a
single calendar day.
Number 2038
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered no. He explained that lobbyists
come [to the state capital] to talk about legislation. He said,
"If we substitute a single calendar day, it would mean you'd
come to Juneau and you could only be here one day, otherwise
you'd have to be registered as a lobbyist." He stated that
that's not his intention at all. He noted that often
[lobbyists] are involved in complicated issues that [are heard
by] more than one committee, and he indicated that [a lobbyist]
may be [in Juneau] for a week, but the actual time he/she spends
contacting legislators or staff is probably not going to be 16
[hours]. He added, "It's very difficult to do, but so is 10, or
so is any amount of time."
Number 1990
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN reiterated his concern about the
[necessitating the use of] a stopwatch. He mentioned making a
friendly amendment at some point.
Number 1973
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated that he doesn't know what is ultimately
the right time [limit]. He indicated having "done this before
as a lobbyist," and he admitted that it is tough to track hours.
He indicated that a lot of [lobbyists] want more [time], and he
opined that the public needs to know "who is down here doing
this." He stated that "16" struck him as "probably okay."
Number 1915
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ remarked that 16 hours equals 64 15-
minute meetings with everybody. He stated that that's a lot of
"face time."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said, "You know, I'm pretty dense. Sometimes it
takes more than one meeting with me a lot of times. If a person
comes down here on their own dime to deal with something that
has interest to them or their company, I think we want to give
them at least that leeway, and in a period of time." He asked
Ms. Kempton to comment.
Number 1870
MS. KEMPTON told the committee that people who are here on their
own dime don't have to register. The same applies to someone
who is a full proprietor, but not of a corporation. The terms
"part-time" and "full-time" employee, used in the language of
the bill refer to people who are employees of and being paid by
an incorporation, association, or union. In response to a
question by Representative Holm, she said that [APOC] does not
make distinctions between "S" corporations and full
corporations, because the law doesn't make those distinctions.
Number 1825
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM responded that the law does make the
distinction in many areas, but not others.
Number 1806
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked how many small businesses have
signed up as lobbyists.
Number 1798
MS. KEMPTON answered that there are 112 employee lobbyists, and
she referred to a list of lobbyists [included in the committee
packet], which shows "maybe two or three small businesses on
it."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ opined that this is not a huge problem,
and he suggested that perhaps someone who's "promoting the
change" could explain it to him.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated that he does "hear" this issue as a big
problem, because the people who are asking for this change are
asking for a lot more than 16 hours. He noted that people with
small chambers of commerce in little communities and with small
businesses are coming [to the legislature] and saying this issue
is a problem.
Number 1700
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that in the seven years that he's
been in the legislature, nobody has ever complained to him about
access.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said they are complaining to him.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said the one [complaint] he has heard
is driven by the state chamber, primarily by one company that
has given him support in the past. He continued as follows:
It just seems to me, if you want to crack open the
lobbying rules, let's be honest about it and put all
the cards on the table. That's what's driving this
debate. The fact that the state chamber is down here,
and that the board of the state chamber is dominated
by this single company, and the state chamber has
heavy influence on the smaller chambers - let's just
confront this issue as it exists and lay it on the
table. But to say that the four hours, ... the eight
hours, the forty hours, [or] the eighty hours is the
issue -- we can't get to solving the problem until
people honestly and accurately describe what the
problem is. And I haven't had that.
Number 1664
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted that there have been lobbyists
representing a church. He asked, "Are we telling the church
representatives how much they can express their, essentially,
religious viewpoints to a committee? Is that a potential
problem?"
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that they would have to be paid,
and if they're a lobbyist, they're probably one of the
registered lobbyists, because that's their job and their getting
paid to do that and are not an employee of the church. He said
that if the pastor, for example, comes to the legislature, the
question is, "At what point is four hours used up, and all of a
sudden they are in there?" He mentioned "the clergy bill" [HB
92]. He said, "People could have been involved for more than
four hours in the 30-day period." He added that he doesn't
think [those people] would have been involved in more than 16
hours, because that's a lot of individual "face time." He
opined, "I don't think that we want to be on that cusp edge; I
don't think there's any need to be." He stated that he doesn't
think that the 16 hours will [cause] a problem. He said, "It
takes that person to ... keep track of their own time."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN stated that he agrees. He said, "Sixteen is
halfway reasonable."
Number 1560
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 15-A, because he
said that he could see it would not pass.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "Seeing that the 16 is somewhat
critical, let me try the two calendar days - doing parts of two
calendar days." He commented, "I'm getting a negative shake
here." He reiterated that he would like someone to tell him
what the problem is. The folks that are complaining to majority
members are not complaining to minority members, he said. He
surmised that maybe that's because the minority members are not
getting lobbied enough. He stated that he sees strong
protections that exist in the four hours. He said he would be
willing to listen to suggestions to fix the four-hour rule if
someone could cite an instance where "someone got tripped up by
the four-hour rule." He noted that some of the proposals have
asked up to 80 hours. He said, "I don't know what I'm trying to
fix with those kind of numbers."
Number 1462
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that he had perhaps spoken too
soon in withdrawing [Amendment 15-A] and said he had one more
question before withdrawing it. He asked [Ms. Kempton] if 16
hours would be cause an enforcement problem.
Number 1443
MS. KEMPTON replied that she has a feeling that 16 hours will be
no easier or harder than the current four hours.
Number 1399
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to [the list of 112 lobbyists]
and asked how large the list would be if the hour limit was
bumped up to 16.
MS. KEMPTON answered, "At least half of them would still be
there and probably more."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked how many times people have gotten
into trouble for breaking the four-hour rule.
MS. KEMPTON prefaced her answer by telling Representative
Berkowitz that this is just her second session [in her
position]. In the last two sessions, she said, two people [have
gotten in trouble].
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ recalled that Ms. Kempton had
previously stated that Mr. Prewitt was one, and he asked who the
other [lobbyist who had gone over the limit] was.
MS. KEMPTON answered that it was Bill Allen of VECO Corporation.
Number 1319
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that there's a perceived problem.
He added, "And so, if it's not going to make a lot of change,
then we can solve the perceived problem with 16 hours, without
going to 40 hours." He opined that 16 hours is adequate leeway
for business people to come to [the legislature] for a few days
and not worry about the easily exceeded four-hour limit. He
added, "And if you were down here for three weeks at a time,
you're going to have to register as a lobbyist, because you're
going to exceed 16 hours."
Number 1240
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated:
Those folks may have a perceived problem, but there's
a perception problem about the legislature. And the
perception problem is that lobbyists buy and sell
legislators; that lobbyists do what they feel
necessary to get their legislation through. And that
perception problem with the general public is more
compelling to me than a problem with, I think, a
number of people who are highly educated about the
political process - educated enough and affluent
enough to come here and take part in it.
The only two individuals who've run afoul of this rule
are both big boys ... and they ought to be able to
take it on the chin and move on. Little guys are not
impacted by this. It's serving and it's working
effectively.
I've been around here. I know that the instance where
Mr. Prewitt has been here on a regular basis. I like
him, he's a good guy, but he crossed the line. Bill
Allen has supported me in the past. I agree with him
on some issues, I disagree with him on some issues.
He was down here day in and day out banging for a
single piece of legislation, and he would have run
afoul of a 16-hour rule. So, that wouldn't have
helped him either. He just didn't do his paperwork,
and these things happen.
But we've got a perception problem, and retreating
from the four-hour limitation compounds the perception
problem. And I'm happy to go to any chamber of
commerce and talk to anybody. Because, if I initiate
a conversation with someone, that doesn't count as
lobbying time. It doesn't. It's only when the
individual initiates the contact that it counts as
lobbying time; it doesn't count when the legislators
start it.
Number 1080
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "I will persist with [Amendment
15-A]. Let's take a vote."
Number 1050
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Berkowitz and
Gruenberg voted in favor of Amendment 15-A. Representatives
Lynn, Holm, Seaton, Dahlstrom, and Weyhrauch voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 15-A failed by a vote of 2-5.
Number 1010
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt a technical amendment
[which would ultimately be called Conceptual Amendment 1] in the
proposed CS as follows:
Page 19, line 17, after with
Delete "a"
Page 19, line 18
Delete "official"
Insert "officials"
Page 19, line 18
Delete "employeee" [sic]
Insert "employees"
Number 0888
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected. If the language is made plural,
he asked, "Now, how are you going to split that up among the
people." He said that 16 hours per individual official or
employee is easy, whereas 16 hours with the plural language
"defies definition to me."
Number 0823
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that people who are not
registered lobbyists who come to talk to legislators, likely
have to make schedules. He said he presumed that none of those
people would get 16 hours with a single legislator. He said,
"So, this isn't in aggregate, so I think the plurals are
important to have there."
Number 0766
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that [without the amendment]
everyone would get 16 hours with each representative, which is
not the intent of the language.
Number 0729
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the technical amendment would be
called Conceptual Amendment 1. In response to a request made by
Representative Dahlstrom, he clarified the changes that would be
made by Conceptual Amendment 1.
Number 0645
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Berkowitz,
Gruenberg, Seaton, Dahlstrom, Lynn, and Weyhrauch voted in favor
of Conceptual Amendment 1. [Representative Holm was not present
at the time of the roll call vote.] Therefore, Conceptual
Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 6-0.
[HB 157 was heard and held.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0590
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:23
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|