02/15/2007 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB6 | |
| HB88 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 109 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 88 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 15, 2007
8:09 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Andrea Doll
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 6
"An Act relating to campaign contributions by groups that are
not political parties; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 88
"An Act relating to televisions, monitors, portable computers,
and similar devices in motor vehicles; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 109
"An Act relating to the requirement for candidates, groups,
legislators, public officials, and other persons to submit
reports electronically to the Alaska Public Offices Commission;
relating to disclosures by legislators, public members of the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, legislative directors,
public officials, and certain candidates for public office
concerning services performed for compensation and concerning
certain income, gifts, and other financial matters; requiring
legislators, public members of the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, legislative directors, public officials, and
municipal officers to make certain financial disclosures when
they leave office; relating to insignificant ownership interest
in a business and to gifts from lobbyists for purposes of the
Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; relating to certain
restrictions on employment after leaving state service for
purposes of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; and
providing for an effective date.
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED PENDING SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 6
SHORT TITLE: CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HARRIS, RAMRAS, HAWKER, CHENAULT,
SAMUELS, FAIRCLOUGH, NEUMAN, OLSON, DAHLSTROM, SEATON, JOHNSON
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) STA, JUD
02/03/07 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM SPEAKER'S CHAMBER
02/03/07 (H) LEGISLATIVE DISCLOSURES/OUTSIDE INCOME
02/13/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/13/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/13/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/15/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 88
SHORT TITLE: TVS AND MONITORS IN MOTOR VEHICLES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GATTO, GRUENBERG
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/12/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
01/29/07 (H) BILL REPRINTED 1/29/07
02/08/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/08/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/13/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/13/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/13/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/15/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN HARRIS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as joint prime sponsor of HB 6.
TAMMY KEMPTON, Project Coordinator
Regulation of Lobbying
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
6.
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered comment regarding a possible
amendment to HB 6.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information regarding an initiative
during the hearing on HB 6.
MICHAEL X. CAMMISA, Director
Safety
Technical Affairs
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM)
Arlington, Virginia
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 6.
JAY LANDERS, Senior Director
Government Affairs
Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA)
Reston, Virginia
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 6.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:09:07 AM. Representatives Roses, Coghill,
Johnson, Gruenberg, Doll, and Lynn were present at the call to
order. Representative Johansen arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 6-CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
8:09:57 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 6, "An Act relating to campaign contributions by groups
that are not political parties; and providing for an effective
date."
8:10:03 AM
CHAIR LYNN removed his objection [stated during the February 13
House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting] to the motion to
adopt the committee substitute (CS) to HB 6, Version 25-
LS0055\K, Bullard, 2/1/07, as a work draft. There being no
further objection, Version K was before the committee.
[Due to technical difficulties recording did not begin until
this point.]
8:11:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN HARRIS, Alaska State Legislature, as joint
prime sponsor of HB 6, said the bill is somewhat controversial.
He said HB 6 will strengthen the initiative rather than weaken
it. He stated his belief that had all the proposals in HB 6
been in the initiative, the voting public would still have
passed the initiative. He reminded the committee that it is
illegal to weaken an initiative within two years of its passing;
however, it is legal to amend it in a manner that strengthens
it. He said he thinks the public wants individuals, not some
group with an agenda, to have the most influence on candidates.
He related that he thinks the public is demanding full
disclosure, which is another concept of the bill that may be
debatable.
8:14:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS, in response to Chair Lynn, offered his
understanding that the maximum a party can give to an individual
candidate has changed from $10,000 to $5,000.
CHAIR LYNN asked, "So then, to be consistent, would you
recommend that we go down to $500 for a party (indisc. --
overlapping voices)?"
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS responded that he doesn't care one way or
the other. He added that he would be fine with the elimination
of group contributions altogether, leaving only individual
contributions; although he said he thinks that may not be legal.
He emphasized that his focus is in regard to where the influence
should be. He said one argument is that rich people can afford
to give $500 more than poor people can. He pointed out that
there are more poor people out there and more less affluent
voters, and if they choose to participate in the process, they
can control it.
8:18:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS revealed that he has been a member of the
Teamsters for 32 years and is the only legislator who is a
working union member. He shared his background as a laborer
from a family of laborers. He explained that some people have
called this bill union bashing, and he assured the committee it
is not.
8:18:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN revealed that he is a former member of NEA-
Alaska and [the California Teachers Association (CTA)], among
other organizations. He indicated that Representative Roses
is, as well. He said a recent cruise ship initiative passed
that had multiple effects. There were differing opinions
regarding whether the legislature can make changes to that
initiative. Regarding the initiative that would be affected by
HB 6, he noted that included in the committee packet is an
opinion issued by Legislative Legal and Research Services
stating that "this wouldn't go to the heart of the issue." He
asked Representative Harris if he knows what the opinion of the
administration and the attorney general is on the matter.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said he doesn't know. He said it is not
uncommon to ask two attorneys for an opinion and get two
different responses. He said the initiative reduced the amount
of campaign contributions from individuals from $1,000 to $500
and the amount from political action committees (PACs) from
$2,000 to $1,000. He said he is just trying to get a discussion
going to consider bringing the $1,000 PAC limit down to [$500].
8:22:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said his understanding of the bill is that
every contribution from a PAC would have to be reported. He
said he sees that in two different ways: being reported to APOC
or being reported to the public. He suggested a firewall be
used to allow APOC to view disclosures while protecting those
individuals reporting. He warned that an unintended consequence
of requiring the reporting of every name and address in every
union could easily aide those who want "to organize to try to
break unions." Furthermore, there are law enforcement officers
who belong to organized labor, and he said he is not certain
every police officer necessarily wants to have his/her name and
address made public. He said he fears the bill may create
"something that becomes difficult to manage."
8:25:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said he does not disagree with
Representative Roses and would not object to protecting the
rights of folks who want to preserve their right to privacy. As
a union member himself, he said he understands the attempts to
break the unions. He said his focus is to make sure that all
contributions to candidates are recorded. He continued:
There used to be a provision in campaign finance that
allowed for monies - $100 or less - to not be reported
individually. In other words, all you did was fill
out ... at the bottom of your form: "received 'x'
amount of dollars, less $100 per contribution." I
want to make sure that that doesn't exist under any
circumstance. So, anybody that contributes to a
candidate individually - that should be recorded
whether they give $5 or whether they give $500 ....
8:26:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said he thinks there is another area of
concern. He offered the following example:
Let's say ... the cruise ship industry had a PAC ....
Well, inside that you've got the bus boys' PAC, and
then inside that you've got the cruise ship waiters'
PAC. Well, on one cruise one way the guy's the bus
boy, [and] on the other cruise going the other way ...
the guy's the waiter. So, does he ... contribute in
all three of those PACs?
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said he does not want to see that type of
thing happen because it gives an unfair advantage to one group
over another.
8:28:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS offered his understanding that it is
already in law that "if you contribute more than $100 ... to a
group or PAC, that's disclosed." He said he thinks that should
remain as is. He noted that the Alaska State Employees' Union
has a voluntary system wherein the state writes a check for the
PAC for a voluntary contribution that a state employee makes to
the PAC. Some people question whether that's the job of the
state or employer to be forced to write a check from somebody's
payroll to a PAC. He said the numbers involved are small, but
the state still goes through the expense of writing the check
and sending it to the PAC each year.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS indicated that former Representative Ethan
Berkowitz had some concern about this issue, and he said he will
find out what that concern was. He stated, "We certainly ...
have to try to protect the rights of people ... from being
abused by the public for whatever reasons because they choose to
participate; but yet we also want to make sure that we honor the
public's ... desire to have as much full disclosure as
possible."
8:30:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he is pretty sure that APOC does not
have a vote. He said the committee needs to look at
"accountability for candidates and who gives them money." He
stated that full disclosure is essential, and he emphasized the
need to [restore] the public's confidence that its legislators
are working on its behalf. He indicated the action needed is to
"follow the money." In response to the previous concern
expressed by Representative Roses, he said it would be simple
for a policeman, for example, to give his/her business address
rather than a home address. He said the act of giving
contributions is 100 percent voluntary.
8:32:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to a handout in the
committee packet addressing the issue of constitutionality. He
said this memorandum does not discuss the superior court's
decision on the [Trust the People Initiative]. He indicated
that that decision may be helpful to consider. He directed
attention to another legal memorandum in the committee packet
[from Alpheus Bullard, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
dated February 14, 2007], and he paraphrased the first sentence,
which read as follows:
You inquired about existing law concerning campaign
contributions as applied to groups that support or
oppose a ballot proposition and about whether the
groups or individuals who contribute to the groups
could be subjected to contribution limits.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "I was even more interested in
whether they could be the subject to require disclosure, and
that's quite a different question than contribution limits." He
said his glance at some of the cases shows that none of them
seem to deal with disclosures. He suggested that if "they" have
a right to anonymity, "might not contributors to individual
candidates have some constitutionally protected right of privacy
also?" He opined that the Alaska State Constitution's right to
privacy in Article 1, Section 22 is "broader than the federal
right to privacy."
8:36:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS promised that if any attorney general's
opinion is received that shows that HB 6 is violating the intent
of the law, he will not pursue the bill further. He stated that
if Representative Gruenberg's assumption is correct, then no
contribution would have to be reported.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said small contribution amounts may be
subject to greater constitutional protection.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS stated, "As long as the aggregate amount
wasn't over that, I am not opposing the $100 or less not being
reported." He added, "To a group, not to a candidate ...."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated, "If I'm giving $25 to a
candidate or $25 to a group which I know is going to be
supporting a certain group of candidates, the constitutional
protection should still remain."
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS responded, "Well, that's obviously if the
attorney general is coming out with that position."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "How about if the attorney
general or somebody doesn't come out with that opinion if
they're constitutionally protected; how about on a policy
basis?"
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS answered that that has to be debated. He
said the merits of the bill as currently presented are related
to having full disclosure. He reiterated that he is not trying
to bust unions or infringe on privacy. He said Representative
Johnson brought up an alternative, and he said he would like to
work through that issue. He said he would like to have a
discussion in the House Judiciary Standing Committee regarding
the legal questions; however, he said he is presently still
"open to the discussion."
8:40:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said Alaska Supreme Court Judges, in
interpreting the Alaska State Constitution, are to some extent
considering the policy issues involved. He said they may
express that consideration in terms of history, precedent, or
text, but ultimately there is consideration of practical
implication and policy. He stated, "We are forced, more often
than the court system in determining what's good public policy,
and that makes for tougher decisions in many cases, and this
happens to be one of them." He asked Representative Harris to
consider whether someone who makes a small contribution of $10-
$50 to a candidate or through a PAC should have an expectation
that that contribution should be private. He said, "You know,
we have a one-dollar check-off on the federal income tax,
because logically, if everything's reported, then everybody who
checks that one dollar off has no expectation that the world
won't know that they're giving a dollar."
8:42:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS stated that the intent of bill is to have
full disclosure for everyone; he is not advocating that there be
exemptions. He said if a question of legality arises, he would
at the very least want full disclosure regarding contributions
to candidates.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thinks people are concerned
about the possibility of identity theft, for example, as a
result of having their names entered into a database.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS echoed Representative Johnson's remark
that making a contribution is a 100 percent voluntary act.
8:44:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL described one of the problems he thinks
could result from a $100 limit as follows:
You could come up with a lot of money and assign names
to it, and nobody really knows. So, I think because
of the effect that it has on elections, you want to
know if there's credibility to that money. So, for
me, personally, that's how I look at it. ... And I
agree that for groups to go ahead and gather money
together from their perspective supporters and then
collectively put that together and send it off to a
candidate, the group itself probably needs to be the
more accountable - I understand that. So, it might be
the better thing to do is to limit those groups'
abilities. But I was just talking with the -- so
parties and groups are the same thing. Parties are
made for the express purpose of helping candidates get
elected and promoting political philosophy. And if
groups are going to act under that same auspices, then
that's ... just what's going to have to happen. It
might change the actual dynamics of elections, where
people have to be engaged beyond their group.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said last night he filled out his
disclosure report to APOC; everybody who wrote him a check was
recorded, with those contributing at a certain level being
reported with employer information. He questioned whether it is
important to know where those contributors got their money. He
said, "I think when a group has a contributor's list ... of
contributors over $100 we can find out." He continued:
So, let's just say $20 million goes into Alaska's
campaign, and we don't know where the $20 million came
from, because they all fly under the $100 limit. That
is a significant impact to the policy of Alaska, and
... I've heard that number at least once in this
testimony. So, if we're going to require ... of
political parties that they tell us who is giving it
from $100 and up, we certainly would be requiring it
for $100 and below. Same things with groups. My
guess is that would change the dynamic of how groups
work, because there are some people that don't want
their name out there on that list. But I can tell
you, everybody who has put their $101 out there, they
are on that list. And so, ... the question is, I
guess a little on the philosophical side, and that is:
If you're going to participate in elections, whether
it's voting, because that's available - just the
simple act of voting, that's available whether you did
or didn't vote - we can find that out. We can
actually find out your name and address if you voted.
Do you want the anonymity to go down to just the
simple act of a vote? Or, if you're going to
participate in elections at all, can people know who
you are? I don't really have a problem with that.
And so, to say that a certain group deserve[s]
anonymity over the other I struggle with. ...
Therefore, I'm going to probably head in the direction
of doing this without trying to bust anybody, because
there's people above that list that can already be
busted, and it hasn't happened as far as I know.
Except for maybe on one occasion, I know where a
particular group decided that they were going to
picket a certain business because of political action
that they were doing. But, it's free society; they
had the right to picket; I did not complain about
that. I got angry at them, but they had the right.
So, you have the right to participate; you have the
right not to participate.
8:49:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said she realizes that legislators are here
to serve the public, yet she stated there is fine line involved
in doing so. She said she thinks that there is a point at which
the legislature hinders public participation. She questioned
Representative Roses' idea of having a firewall, because once
any information goes to APOC, it becomes public.
8:51:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to a court case referenced in
the committee packet. He said he would like to look at the
bigger picture, which is that the citizens of the state have no
confidence in state legislators. He opined that HB 6 is a great
way to be accountable for every penny.
8:53:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said someone told her that HB 6 would make
it difficult for people to donate small amounts, and it would be
an incumbent's dream. She interpreted that to mean that when
people run for office for the first time, they typically get
contributions in small amounts through grass roots efforts.
8:54:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said Representative Doll had commented
previously about reporting cash contributions. He said he hopes
she is not doing that, because accepting cash contributions is
illegal. Furthermore, he said the bill would not change current
law as it relates to candidates; it does effect contributions in
regard to groups. He said the bill would not affect incumbents
any more than it would challengers.
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL clarified that she had not been referring to
groups, but to individual contributors.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS reemphasized that the law regarding
individual contributions to legislators or candidates is not
being touched.
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said she understands that. She stated,
"What we're asking here is additional information on employer
and occupation."
8:55:54 AM
CHAIR LYNN said it seems that the whole committee is concerned
about having transparency regarding where money is coming from.
He said that transparency already exists regarding contributions
from individuals. He posited that the concern is related to
money that people get from PACs, and he indicated that
information should be disclosed. He brought to the attention of
the committee an amendment [never offered], labeled 25-
LS0055\K.6, Bullard, 2/14/07, which read as follows:
Page 2, line 19, following "(b)":
Delete "Each"
Insert "Except as provided in (p) of this
section, each [EACH]"
Page 4, following line 8:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 5. AS 15.13.040 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(p) Notwithstanding other provisions of this
chapter, a group that is not a political party is not
required to file a report under AS 15.13.110(b), and
is not required to file a report under (b) of this
section unless 90 percent or more of the aggregate
amount of all contributions made to that group is
attributable to the contributions of 10 or fewer
contributors."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
CHAIR LYNN said the amendment would address the concern about
following the money.
8:57:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said he thinks there are existing rules
regarding how much PACs can contribute, based upon how large a
membership they have.
8:59:56 AM
TAMMY KEMPTON, Project Coordinator, Regulation of Lobbying,
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), clarified, "The limit
on a PAC isn't how much it can give totally, but how much it can
give to each candidate. Currently that's $1,000."
9:00:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if there is any limit to what a person
can give to a PAC.
9:00:47 AM
MS. KEMPTON answered yes. She stated:
The only group that can accept unlimited contributions
are those that are ballot proposition/ballot
initiative. Those you can give, either as an
individual or as a company, an unlimited amount;
however, the contributor, once they've given $500 to a
ballot measure group, an initiative group, has to
report that $500. [If] they give another $500 they
have to report that .... It's an incremental
reporting thing. And the group itself, of course has
to report receiving those. But for regular groups,
including political parties, there's a limit to the
amount that you can contribute ... to a PAC or to any
other group, because a pack is just a group that's
formed to support multiple candidates. A pack can't
support a single candidate, because then it becomes a
controlled group and not a PAC.
MS. KEMPTON corrected a past misstatement by clarifying that it
is all right to accept cash contributions if the identity of the
person giving the cash is known. Cash left in a basket at a
fundraiser by an anonymous donor has to be turned over to the
state. She stated, "If the person gives it to you and tells you
their name or you already knew their name, then you can accept
it, so long as they don't give you more than $100 aggregate in
the election season."
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS thanked Ms. Kempton for the correction,
explaining that his understanding had been that a candidate
could not accept cash at all.
CHAIR LYNN asked Ms. Kempton if there is anything in the
language of his aforementioned amendment that would not be
appropriate from the viewpoint of APOC.
9:03:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS interjected:
... The law says that ... if four or five or six
people were to give the maximum amount, you still
wouldn't have a whole lot of money there, and they
would ... just be able to give you that particular
amount of money .... If you had a thousand people in
a PAC, I mean if the PAC was truly representative, ...
each one of those thousand people could contribute the
maximum amount that they could to the PAC, and the PAC
would then be able to distribute that amount of money
out. Do you follow what I'm saying?
9:04:58 AM
MS. KEMPTON interpreted that the aforementioned amendment would
exempt groups from having to file the 24-hour reports. She
explained that [AS] 15.10.110(b), as referenced in the
amendment, addresses 24-hour reports.
CHAIR LYNN responded that that was not his intent.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that Chair Lynn's amendment
needed to be "looked at."
MS. KEMPTON offered further comment regarding AS 15.13.110(b),
which read as follows:
(b) Each contribution that exceeds $250 and that
is made within nine days of the election shall be
reported to the commission by date, amount, and
contributor within 24 hours of receipt by the
candidate, group, campaign treasurer, or deputy
campaign treasurer. Each contribution to 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 within 24
hours of receipt by the nongroup entity.
MS. KEMPTON, in response to a question from Chair Lynn, said she
believes the aforementioned statute is not the correct one to be
included in the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that Chair
Lynn's intent was "to exempt everyone who has more than 10
members from filing any reports, so this is properly drafted."
9:07:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked Chair Lynn to confirm that that is
his intent.
CHAIR LYNN stated, "Well, it would be disclosure if they had ...
10 or fewer people, ... and 90 percent of the money came from
that."
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS cautioned Chair Lynn that he is leaving
himself "pretty open here."
9:08:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if there are any rules or
regulations that say a person must be able to clearly identify
from a PAC's name who it represents.
9:09:49 AM
MS. KEMPTON answered no. She stated that there is a statute or
regulation - but most likely a statute - that requires all
groups formed to support or oppose a candidate clearly identify
the name of the candidate and whether they're supporting or
opposing that candidate. She added, "But there's not a similar
requirement that a PAC name itself in such a way that you know
... philosophically what it supports."
9:10:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said that concerns him. He said he would
like [PACs] to have some kind of mission statement made
available to the public.
MS. KEMPTON said PACs are required to be registered with APOC
before they can give contributions. She said that listing can
be found in the group listings. In response to a follow-up
question from Representative Johnson, she explained that when
group registers with APOC, one of the selections it makes on the
registration form is what type of group it is, for example: a
subsidiary of a political party; a new political party; or a
PAC. Furthermore, that group has to state what its purpose is,
which she said could be as simple as declaring support or
opposition of a certain candidate. She added, "Some groups get
more explicit, some don't, but you could certainly make those
requirements."
9:12:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON posited that this is an issue that the
committee should discuss. He explained that at a minimum he
would like groups to reveal where they come from, who they stand
for, and who they represent, so that the public can easily
identify whether or not he/she supports the candidate. In
response to a request from Chair Lynn, he said he would be
willing to "investigate" the matter further and consider
offering an amendment; however, he stated that HB 6 may not be
the vehicle for this issue.
9:13:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that one way to address the
issue would be to delineate those groups that are PACs by
putting an asterisks next to their names on a web page, for
example, and then "noticing what their access to information
is."
9:14:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he is not suggesting that APOC begin
keeping a database of all groups at a depth that would show the
groups' philosophies; however, he stated that he thinks there is
some way to find out what PACs stand for with a little bit of
research.
CHAIR LYNN proffered, "A mission statement from the PAC."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON added, "Or a link to their web page."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that the link [would be a way
to access a PAC's] purpose statement.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON indicated that that would be a move
toward full disclosure.
CHAIR LYNN noted that not all people have access to the
Internet.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented, "Those who report on that
probably have very little problem getting that information out."
9:16:00 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked Ms. Kempton if Representative Roses' previous
suggestion regarding a firewall would be practical and feasible.
MS. KEMPTON replied that she does not know enough about the
technology to answer that. She suggested that an easier option
may be to allow people to use business addresses if they are a
resident of the state. She explained:
The reason we require the address is because you're
only allowed to accept a certain percentage of out-of-
state contributions. We don't know whether they're
in-state or out-of-state contributions unless you
provide the address of your contributors. So, if they
just provide a business address and the business is in
Alaska, they may or may not be an Alaska resident.
MS. KEMPTON indicated that the following occupations would be
some of those which would benefit from an amendment allowing
them to list their business address: fire fighters, police
officers, and people who serve on boards that are sensitive.
9:17:47 AM
CHAIR LYNN suggested another example of people who would benefit
would be [victims of] sexual assault, because they may want to
contribute to a candidate who supports their issues, without
having their assailants know their home address.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES, in response to Chair Lynn, said he would
check into the idea of the firewall; however, he said the
feasibility of that idea would depend upon whether or not the
technology exists and whether or not the state's regulations are
changed so that [APOC] has "the ability to do that." He
clarified his prior remark about a firewall as follows:
I said if we were concerned about people accessing
addresses of everybody inside of a PAC that wanted to
therefore use those names and addresses to potential
organize to break up a union, that that would be a way
in which you could do it. The information's reported,
but if ... there are questions about whether or not
something was proper or legal, ... APOC could then
access that ....
9:19:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, regarding the argument that full
disclosure will "break the union," said, "If reporting under
$100 breaks a union, then we've got a problem in America." He
said he does not accept or believe that argument. He stated, "I
understand that when people want to contribute, they want some
degree of protection for their privacy, but that's true when
they contribute $101."
9:20:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES clarified that his concern had not been in
regard to the amount of money donated, but was in regard to the
disclosure of the name and address of each individual. He
added, "Because then it opens up the avenue for them to be
contacted through the mail directly and to be solicited."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL clarified that he doesn't want to have
the issue focused on unions, because it could also affect
businesses or groups that have a particular philosophy and want
to put together a PAC.
9:21:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said it used to be that all campaign
contributions were reportable "to any limit." The initiative
changed so that any contribution of $100 or less does not have
to be reported. He stated, "The initiative was supposed to be
for full disclosure, for more openness, for less contributions.
The reality is the initiative, under that condition, was less
disclosure."
9:22:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that sometimes there is a lot of
pressure on union members to bust the unions. For that reason,
he said, unions have guarded their lists. He said, "This is an
attempt to open up that membership list. He continued:
It won't be solved by listing a business address,
because if somebody's intent on using that list of
names, all they'll have to do is go to the Division of
Elections and find out their address, because that's
public information on their voter file. And so,
they'll still ... be able to find out where that
person lives and contact them at their home. They'll
also certainly know where they work. The point is:
they'll know who they are.
9:23:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS responded that he does not know that union
busting was "any different then than it would be now." He said
if Representative Gruenberg has factual evidence, then he will
stand corrected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is not suggesting that has
changed. He stated, "I'm suggesting what they're concerned
about. And what we're talking about here is the chilling
effect. The ability to contribute and to speak out is part of
the right to ... petition the government, become part of the
governmental process. It's really an aspect of free speech, and
it doesn't take a lot to chill that."
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said he does not know how to respond to
that. He said he has a lot of friends who are part of the
union. He stated that there are certainly those businesses in
Alaska and across the nation that would like to see less union
involvement. He continued:
I think it was just ... indicated here recently that
... certainly less than 20 percent of the work force
in the country is organized labor, and about 35 or 40
percent of government workers are organized labor
nationally. In Alaska, of course, it's much higher.
... And in the rest of the work force I think it's
between 10 to 15 percent of the work force is
organized labor.
9:26:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS reiterated that his intent is [to have]
full disclosure. He stated, "If you [had] put what I have in
this bill today in the initiative that was put forward before
the public, it would have passed as overwhelmingly as it did
before."
9:28:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said nobody knows why people vote [a
certain way] and people have a right to keep their reasoning
secret. He said that is a right of privacy, which is in
statute. He stated, "The people's right to be free from change
should ... remain for the two-year period. Two years isn't very
long."
9:30:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said when initiatives are put forward that
are not well explained to the public, then people are duped. He
said laws are changed by initiative process in a very short
period of time, with a limited amount of education, thus many
times people's support of an initiative is for emotional
reasons. The legislature is a deliberative body, and it has the
responsibility to think through initiatives that have passed, he
said.
9:32:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said a central question is: "Who
decides the text of the law?" He said he votes "on the side of
the people." He remarked that the time to wait before the
legislature can change the language of an initiative that has
become law is not long. He said the initiative is "the last
vestige of direct democracy," and he relayed that he would
exercise the right to change an initiative about as often as or
less often than he would vote to amend the constitution.
9:33:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked, "Then why is it that we have in law
the ability to amend an initiative?"
9:33:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied that sometimes there are
typographical errors or handwritten initiatives that don't make
legal sense. He said the power given the legislature regarding
initiatives is a very basic one that should be used sparingly.
9:34:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said this issue would not hold the urgency
it does if ethics and campaign reform had not been the focal
point of every single campaign in the state.
CHAIR LYNN concurred that ethics is one of two main issues this
session; the other issue is the gas pipeline.
CHAIR LYNN asked Mr. Bullard from Legislative Legal and Research
Services if he thinks the aforementioned amendment [text
provided previously] would address some of the issues that have
been raised before the committee.
9:36:44 AM
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, stated that part of the
discussion he has heard in relation to the aforementioned
amendment is how it would work in the context of AS 15.13.110(b)
and "why that was excepted." He continued:
... At this time we don't have PACs enshrined in
[Alaska] Statute, so best described in statutory terms
as a ... group that is not a political party - one
that has 10 members or less would be "excepted" from
needing to disclose. And areas in law right now where
they have to report are in [AS] 15.13.040(b) and
15.13.110.
CHAIR LYNN indicated that he picked the amounts of 90 and 10
percent to "get the concept out on the table." He asked Mr.
Bullard for comment.
MR. BULLARD replied, "In dealing with this amendment, there may
be constitutional concerns of equal protection and free speech;
I have not yet ... had time to map out exactly what those would
be."
9:38:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said Alaska law allows people to have
their voice, and he said he thinks that should continue
irrespective of "who has the most dollars involved in a
political action committee." He said individuals contributing
over a certain amount have to report that they have done so. He
said, "Under this law, those [contributing] under $100 would
have to, and that's really the sticking point." He said, "The
question then is: 'How do you allow them to influence a
campaign?' Do you allow them to give 60 members in the
legislature a thousand dollars each or be able to give, for
example, money to a party or have a subgroup of a party give
some to the major part of the party? You can transfer money
between these groups." He said he likes Representative
Johnson's recommendation to "just find out who these folks are."
He urged Chair Lynn not to "go down that road" of using the 90
and 10 percent amounts. He suggested another question regarding
full disclosure is: "Is there a deserving public policy call
for anonymity below the $100 limit, and should they be able to
give a thousand or five hundred as it says in this particular
bill?" He suggested requiring PACs to clearly define the
acronyms they use. He said another question to ask is whether
or not limiting the amount that a PAC can give is limiting its
free speech. He stated that he thinks Chair Lynn's amendment
answers a question but creates ten more.
9:43:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested hearing from Representative
Harry Crawford regarding a court decision related to an
initiative.
9:44:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD, Alaska State Legislature, stated:
On the Trust the People Initiative that we did ... we
said we wanted to have an elected U.S. Senator - that
we didn't want to have an incumbent appointed U.S.
Senator. In the bill that was passed by the
legislature, they said, "We want you to have a Senator
for the interim - that's 60-90 days where we might
have a vacancy." After that bill was passed and the
Lieutenant Governor took the initiative off the
ballot, we took it to court and the [Alaska] Supreme
Court decided that that was an actual repeal of a
portion of that initiative that was going on the
ballot. So, they put it back on the ballot. ... It
was not the intent of the initiative to have an
interim appointment there - that was repealing - and
they don't have the ability to take that decision away
from the people.
So, ... we think that this would ... repeal ... a
portion of our initiative that we got passed
overwhelmingly. We believe that the reason for the
two-year prohibition of a repeal is so that the people
can actually see how the law works in ... practice.
9:46:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he fails to see the analogy.
9:47:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD clarified that he was "addressing the
part where it repeals the reporting under $100." He explained,
"The reason why we did that was a number of groups - like the
Alaska Outdoor Council and [the National Rifle Association
(NRA)] and different unions - had said that that was too onerous
for reporting each and every person." He offered an example.
MR. JOHNSON indicated that Representative Crawford's point is
relative.
9:48:13 AM
CHAIR LYNN said he would like to check with the attorney
general's office on "this portion we're just talking about."
CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 6 was heard and held.
HB 88-TVS AND MONITORS IN MOTOR VEHICLES
9:49:25 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 88, "An Act relating to televisions, monitors, portable
computers, and similar devices in motor vehicles; and providing
for an effective date."
9:50:20 AM
MICHAEL X. CAMMISA, Director, Safety, Technical Affairs,
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM),
said AIAM is a trade association representing 14 motor vehicle
manufacturers that account for over 40 percent of all light duty
vehicles produced annually in the U.S. He continued with his
testimony as follows:
Our members include Aston Martin, Ferrari, Honda,
Hyundai, Isuzu, Kia, Maserati, Mitsubishi, Nissan,
Peugeot, Renault, Subaru, Suzuki, and Toyota. I'd
like to thank the committee for inviting me to
participate in this hearing on the important issue of
driver distraction from video displays in motor
vehicles. AIAM wishes to support your process of
developing legislation intended to prevent operators
of motor vehicles from watching television, video, and
other entertainment programming while driving. AIAM
supports your goal of trying to keep drivers from
being distracted by viewing images unrelated to the
driving task. ... We have developed some model
language that we believe accomplishes this goal, while
addressing two main concerns, which are: One, we want
to ensure that new state requirements do not
inadvertently prohibit technology that can assist the
driver in the driving task, ... such as navigation
systems, ... vehicle information displays, and
technology for monitoring forward, rear, and side
views to help the driver maneuvering the vehicle. ...
These devices also make use of video or image display
devices. Likewise, we'd like to see that the
legislation does not inadvertently prohibit image
display devices that have been designed with
appropriate safeguards that are intended to prevent
the driver from watching the images while the vehicle
is in motion. And then our second concern is it's our
hope that states passing legislation to address this
issue will adopt clear and consistent requirements:
clear, so that the vehicle manufacturers will know
what the rules are when designing the vehicles; and
consistent, so that the same vehicles can be sold and
driven throughout the country.
MR. CAMMISA offered to answer questions.
9:52:54 AM
MR. CAMMISA, in response to Representative Gruenberg, said AIAM
essentially supports HB 88; however, he noted that he "provided
a few markups to the language" to Representative Gruenberg's
staff to clarify the language without changing its intent.
9:53:35 AM
JAY LANDERS, Senior Director, Government Affairs, Recreational
Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA), said the RVIA represents
approximately 98 percent of all recreational vehicle (RV)
manufacturers. He said the RVIA has worked closely not only
with [the AIAM] but also with the Consumer Electronics
Association to try to develop language that would satisfy the
concerns of all involved. He said that similar to "the car
manufacturers," the RVIA is looking for "uniformity among the
states." He indicated that prior bills passed into law have
"succeeded with this concern so far." He relayed that there are
RVs that already have televisions "up front." He explained that
an interlock device has been installed in those models so that
the instant the RV's ignition is engaged, the circuit to those
televisions is cut automatically, which makes it impossible to
view the television screens while driving. He stated, "...
We're not supportive of any kind of handheld movie device
sitting on the ... passenger's side ...." He said he believes
HB 88 addresses RVIA's concern.
[HB 88 was heard and held.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
9:56:19 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|