02/07/2008 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB299 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 299 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 7, 2008
8:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Andrea Doll
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Max Gruenberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 299
"An Act relating to campaign contributions made to candidates in
state elections; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PENDING INTRODUCTION & REFERRAL
"An Act relating to parental notice and consent for a minor's
abortion; relating to penalties for an abortion procedure;
relating to a judicial bypass procedure for an abortion;
relating to coercion of a minor to have an abortion; relating to
reporting of abortions performed on minors; and amending court
rules."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 299
SHORT TITLE: CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KELLER
01/11/08 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/11/08
01/15/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/15/08 (H) STA, JUD
02/07/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 299 as prime sponsor.
JIM POUND, Staff
Representative Wes Keller
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
299, on behalf of Representative Keller, prime sponsor.
BROOK MILES, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments regarding HB 299.
ACTION NARRATIVE
VICE CHAIR BOB ROSES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:06:07 AM. Representatives
Coghill, Johansen, Johnson, Doll, and Roses were present at the
call to order.
VICE CHAIR ROSES provided updates regarding the improving health
of Representative Bob Lynn.
HB 299-CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
8:07:19 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES announced that the only order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 299, "An Act relating to campaign contributions
made to candidates in state elections; and providing for an
effective date."
8:07:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, Alaska State Legislature, presented
HB 299 as prime sponsor. He stated that the legislature is one
of representation. At some level, he said, he is accountable to
every one of the 15,000 people that he represents, while on
another level he is accountable for every constituent who voted
for him. Yet another level, he noted, is the accountability he
has to the people who contributed to his campaign. He
continued:
If I accept a contribution from a sport fisherman that
is not in my district, I pick up some level of
accountability to that sport fisherman ... to explain
if I vote for something that looks like it doesn't
support that ... issue that he stood for when he gave
me the check. Of course, the level of accountability
to a contributor varies with every circumstance, but
it is there.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER noted that the Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC) reports are readily accessible to everyone.
He indicated that through these reports he came to the
conclusion that over half of most of the contributions were made
by "people who were out of district," which he said he found
disturbing. He chose three legislators' statistics to give to
Legislative Legal and Research Services and found that the
percent of each legislator's funds that came from outside
his/her district was 80, 69, and 74 percent, respectively. The
bigger the "war chest," the better a chance a legislator will
win a campaign. He stated:
From a voter's perspective, it's always easier to
approach a candidate or your representative if you've
got a record of a donation that went to them, you
know, it just give[s] you a position of confidence to
approach them. And, of course, a number of shrewd
contributors and people who are astute out there give
... to all sides of the campaign, you know, so they
... have that access.
8:10:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER remarked that HB 299 is a simple bill that
says, "No more poaching." The bill would not allow anyone who
cannot vote for a candidate to give that candidate a
contribution. Furthermore, it would do away with campaign
contributions from lobbyists and special interests. He stated
that the reason HB 299 would not affect the right to free speech
is that it would not limit in any way what a political action
committee (PAC) could do. A PAC would still be able to spend as
much money as it wants to oppose or support a candidate; it just
could not do it through a campaign organization. Furthermore,
anyone in a PAC or a PAC itself would still be able to
contribute to a political party. Representative Keller said HB
299, with an effective date of 2009, would not affect the 2008
elections. He stated his hope that HB 299 would cut down on the
cost of campaigns due to the proposed elimination of "deep
pocket" influences to campaign contributions. He gave credit
for the bill concept to his staff, Jim Pound, and he urged the
committee to support HB 299.
8:13:32 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES recalled that the bill sponsor had said that
the proposed legislation would allow PACs to continue to have
independent expenditure for or against a candidate but would not
allow them to donate to a candidate's campaign. He said his
district is in a low-income area and the contributions he
received from the people in that district amounted to almost
nothing. In a case where a candidate running had a tremendous
amount of support from PACs, the proposed legislation would tip
the scale to the point where the individual who is not receiving
contributions from a PAC would have no money, whereas the other
person would have lots of people campaigning on their behalf,
even though money was not given directly to the campaign.
8:14:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER clarified that he did not mean to say that
the bill would decrease the power of PACs, but rather that they
will not be able to give to a candidate's campaign. Regarding
Vice Chair Roses' low-income constituency, Representative Keller
said, "I would contend that fifty $10 donations give you a whole
lot more momentum than a $500 contribution from one exterior..."
8:15:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL directed attention to language in Section
7, [on page 3, beginning on line 27, amending the definition of
"group" as found in AS 15.13.400(8)], which read:
a group whose major purpose is to further the
nomination, election, or candidacy of only one
individual, or intends to expend more than 50 percent
of its money on a single candidate, shall be
considered to be controlled by that candidate and its
actions done with the candidate's knowledge and
consent
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said, "I'm trying to think how effective
that's going to be under this new scenario, for a PAC, if they
can't put more than 50 percent of their money against or for a
candidate. He said he is also trying to figure out how this
language applies to the previous statement by Vice Chair Roses.
He asked if the sponsor had thought of changing that language.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said the intent was to leave that language
alone. He deferred to his staff for further comment.
8:17:03 AM
JIM POUND, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Keller, indicated to
Representative Coghill that the ability for creating groups in
support of or opposed to certain candidates exists in statute,
but the name of the candidate must be listed. He said a PAC can
create a group, but the sponsor does not want to change the
limits regarding how much the PAC can spend in a particular
district.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said the key difference is what [a PAC]
can contribute - which it would be barred from doing - to how
much [a PAC] can spend. He said that is a different dynamic
that he will have to consider for awhile.
8:18:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON described a scenario in which the
Republican Party forms a group for each senate district to
oppose all the Democrats. The groups "run amuck," raising an
unlimited amount of money, spending as much money as they want
up to the 50 percent limit, and say what they want to say,
without any input from the candidate. He said he does not see
how that would benefit the election process. He asked the bill
sponsor if he had considered such a scenario.
8:19:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER responded that he does not foresee a
problem, because of the law that says a group must clearly state
its support of a certain candidate.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked what would prevent the groups from
calling themselves "citizens in support of better government in
support of conservative costs."
MR. POUND reiterated that existing statute requires a group to
use the name of the candidate it opposes or supports in its
disclaimer.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON questioned what keeps the group from
spending as much money as it wants. In response to Mr. Pound,
he reiterated his aforementioned scenario for clarification. He
said he thinks this scenario may make a candidate less
responsible to his/her constituents.
8:22:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if Representative Johnson is saying
that if the dynamics were changed so that the groups cannot
contribute directly to the candidate, then they would form and
have a new dynamic in a campaign. He commented that that could
happen now. That level of influence is already there, just not
visible, he said. The group that raises unlimited funds has to
show where those funds come from and how they are being spent,
just the same as it would for a campaign.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he doesn't want to be argumentative,
but stated, "That removes accountability from the candidate."
He explained, "It takes what ... is being told to my constituent
out of my hand and places it in someone else's, and by law I
can't have any influence on that - I can't have any knowledge of
that." Conversely, any money coming directly to him,
Representative Johnson said, he is accountable for.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON emphasized how problematic it is for him
to hear someone state that contributions influence a
legislator's decision. As he stated before the committee in the
past, he emphasized that he tells everyone he meets that his/her
contribution will not influence his vote.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER clarified that that is not what he said,
and he said he is sensitive to the issue. He explained that his
argument is that there is always some level of accountability.
For example, he said if someone gives him a check, his
accountability to that person may involved saying, "I will
listen to your point," or "I will listen to what you have to say
when you disagree with me, ... but we know already that we're
going to disagree." He added, "But I'm just saying that that is
something that's really taking away from the dollar contribution
capability of the constituent to a particular candidate - that's
all I'm saying."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON responded that he has a problem with the
term "accountability to a contributor." He stated that his
accountability is to the laws of the state, the Constitution of
the State of Alaska, his constituents, and himself. He
concluded, "Accountability to me cannot be purchased."
8:27:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked for confirmation that individuals
from a district that abuts his district, where there is a shared
economic and cultural interest, would not be allowed to
contribute to his campaign. Furthermore, his own sister in
Anchorage and brother in Juneau would not be allowed to
contribute to his campaign.
8:28:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER answered that's correct. He said his
premise and belief is that a legislator's job is to represent
his/her constituents.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN suggested that anyone outside his
district could give money to a group that happens to support
him.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said it depends on how Representative
Johansen is defining "group." If he means a political party,
then the answer is yes - a party can write a check in support of
a candidate of its choice. A PAC, he said, can expend the money
as it wishes. Regarding parties, Representative Keller said
early on he appreciated that parties have values that are built
upon grass roots, and he likes "screening by party."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN noted that in his district,
approximately 60-75 percent of his voters do not belong to a
political party and probably as many have no idea what a PAC is.
He observed that it is interesting that the individual Alaskan
would be limited [by the proposed legislation], but money could
be sent through political action committees and political
parties. He said, "Believe me, when people look at those APOC
reports and they see eight [contributions] in a row from the
same company, I think they can put two and two together." He
stated that he has a problem with "where this bill's going."
8:32:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said there had been some misstatements
regarding "the avenue of giving," and he said he anticipated a
correction from a representative from APOC.
8:32:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said she thinks the sponsor's intentions are
good, but that HB 299 is not the manner through which to achieve
them. She said she thinks it is desirable to encourage
participation in democracy, and she said she would not like to
see such participation limited to the boundaries of a district.
She noted that the bill sponsor had mentioned the importance of
individual contributions, but the bill does not foster them.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER contended that if the bill were to pass,
it would increase constituent involvement, because the value of
their dollar in a campaign contribution would be higher. To
Representative Johnson, he emphasized that he had never meant to
imply "that any of you are bought any more than I am or any of
us." He said he hopes the proposed legislation would bring
about more grass roots involvement in campaigning and in
[political] parties, indirectly.
8:35:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that campaign contributions are
not necessarily about the candidate but about "the message that
needs to go into a district"; therefore, he said there probably
is a misperception that the money given to a candidate somehow
enriches a candidate. He said he agrees with [Representative
Johnson] that a contribution helps a candidate deliver his/her
message; it does not influence the messenger. He asked if the
sponsor has contemplated removing groups and PACS from the bill.
He continued:
I think you run into some constitutional issues, you
run into the freedom of association issues, but if
you're going to limit a candidate to a district, it
would seem to me [that] you'd want to just level the
whole field and say, "Only from that district can
anybody ever speak about that candidate." And you see
the problem that begins to create. ... But have you
contemplated that?
MR. POUND responded, "That is a blatant violation of the First
Amendment."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL concurred and then explained the reason
he had asked the question is because he thinks that a problem
may result within a district by giving advantage to outside
influences. He commented that the size of some single districts
in Alaska are bigger than some states, and making the kind of
personal contact necessary to increase contribution levels could
be difficult. He noted that there is little campaign time in
which to get out a message, and there could be disadvantages,
especially if a group is formed to undermine the efforts of the
person campaigning within the district. Representative Coghill
said he agrees that the issue at hand is freedom of association,
so it is not possible to do away with groups. He recalled
[Representative Johansen's] remark regarding the number of his
constituents who are not affiliated with a political party, and
he questioned how a candidate is supposed to get his/her message
out to those people other than "being able to get people to get
that message out."
8:40:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said the low percentage of voter turnout
is a significant factor that caused him to sponsor HB 299. He
said, "If there's ... a deep pocket that looks over all the
campaigns in the state of Alaska, and he or she has an agenda,
and he picks various campaigns, ... what he's doing is reducing
the influence of the people that might be..." The question he
said, is: "Who's going to be the representative - the real
representation - of the people in the district?" Money buys a
message, he said. He surmised that another question is: "Who's
being represented if 80 percent of the funding for the message
is coming from out of district?" He said this discourages
people in his district from getting involved.
8:42:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN suggested each individual voter needs to
look at the information available from APOC to find out who is
supporting a candidate's campaign and whether or not he/she is
worth voting for.
8:43:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied that the information is not
obvious in APOC's records.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked Representative Keller, "Do you
feel that putting the money through parties and PACS is going to
make it any more clear for the voter to figure out who's giving
to a PAC and a party?"
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER answered that that truly is his intent.
8:45:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said HB 299 would probably serve him well
in his district, because it is not that large; however, in
Representative Woody Salmon's district, for example, the area is
so large that it would take an inordinate amount of money and
time for him to go out and visit all his constituents. He
stated his concern has to do with the disparity in districts.
8:46:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER thanked the committee for its
consideration of HB 299.
8:47:43 AM
BROOK MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), told the committee that although the
commission has taken no position on HB 299, it has legal
concerns regarding the provisions of the bill. Regarding cross-
district giving, she reminded the committee that when campaign
finance reform was passed by the legislature in 1996, there were
provisions which precluded lobbyists from cross-district giving.
She said that provision was upheld by the Alaska Supreme Court,
and in the opinion of the court it was clearly because there was
strong evidence to support a compelling state interest, with
respect to that group of individuals. She stated, "On a
constitutional level we're just not sure that the court would
find that for all of the residents of Alaska." Ms. Miles
mentioned the restriction of PACs from making legal campaign
contributions and "the new ban on corporate contributions,"
which she said exists in Alaska. She also mentioned "the
ability for individuals within a corporation to form PACS, make
contributions within a limit, and then the PAC be able to
contribute directly to candidates." She concluded, "So, in both
of those areas we believe there could be constitutional and
legal concerns and suggest that you research those thoroughly
before moving forward with this legislation."
8:50:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said Ms. Miles' points hit the nail on
the head.
8:50:48 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES closed public testimony.
8:50:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL recalled his early years in the
legislature when he intended to repeal APOC. He said that idea
was born out of "how to get just-in-time reporting." He said
the state is slowly moving into that arena today. The idea of
getting local participation is "exactly the right thing," he
said, however, he remarked that he does not know if [HB 299] is
the way to do it. He stated that he cannot support the bill.
8:52:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL reiterated her appreciation for the intent
of the bill, but said at this point she is afraid the
legislation would be "throwing out the baby with the bathwater."
She said she thinks the goal is to have more individual
participation across lines and she does not want to cut off
support with neighboring districts. Subsequently, she stated
that at this time, she cannot support the bill.
8:53:08 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES said it would be difficult for his low-income
district to raise the kind of money it would take to go up
against the influence of a large group of union PACS, as well as
some of the other individual PACS. He explained, "It's not just
the contributions that they may decide to make to a political
party, or whether they go out and do individual expenditure, but
it's the mobilizing of a workforce to go out and canvas the
neighborhood." For example, he noted that in the last campaign,
one of the union PACS organized 20 people to go door to door,
which means 20 times more coverage of an area in the same amount
of time than that covered by a single candidate. He added, "And
that doesn't show up, but it certainly has a tremendous amount
of influence." Limiting who can contribute inadvertently gives
much more power to the groups and PACS than to the individual,
which he stated is his concern.
VICE CHAIR ROSES announced that HB 299 was heard and held.
8:54:35 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES announced the upcoming committee calendar.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
8:54:43 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|