Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/17/2012 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB195 | |
| SB110 | |
| SJR13 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 110 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SJR 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 17, 2012
1:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Hollis French, Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Joe Paskvan
Senator Lesil McGuire
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator John Coghill
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 195
"An Act establishing a maximum caseload for probation and parole
officers."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 110
"An Act relating to human trafficking; and relating to
sentencing and conditions of probation in criminal cases
involving sex offenses."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 13
Urging the United States Congress and the President of the
United States to work to amend the Constitution of the United
States to prohibit corporations, unions, and individuals from
making unlimited independent expenditures supporting or opposing
candidates for public office.
- MOVED SJR 13 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 195
SHORT TITLE: PROBATION AND PAROLE OFFICERS' CASELOADS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MCGUIRE
02/08/12 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/08/12 (S) JUD, FIN
02/17/12 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 110
SHORT TITLE: HUMAN TRAFFICKING/SEX OFFENSES
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) WIELECHOWSKI
03/21/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/21/11 (S) JUD, FIN
03/30/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/30/11 (S) Heard & Held
03/30/11 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/17/12 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SJR 13
SHORT TITLE: AMEND U.S. CONST RE CAMPAIGN MONEY
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) WIELECHOWSKI
02/01/12 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/01/12 (S) JUD
02/17/12 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
RONALD TAYLOR, Director
Division of Probation and Parole
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 195.
LINDA GERBER, Probation Officer II
Department of Corrections
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 195.
WARREN WATERS, Probation Officer II
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 195.
TRAVIS MORRIS, Probation Officer II
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 195.
LEILA SHEFFIELD, Probation Officer II
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Bethel, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 195.
DONNA WHITE, representing herself
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 195 and commended the
sponsor for opening the dialog.
DOUG GARDNER, Director
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions as drafter of SB 110.
SUZANNE LA PIERRE, representing herself
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered suggestions on SB 110.
QUINLAN STEINER, Public Defender
Public Defender Agency
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Raised concerns about the unintended
consequences of SB 110.
DR. REGINA CHENNAULT, representing herself
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated support for SB 110.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Raised concerns with SB 110.
CHRISTINA MOUNCE
Juneau Chapter, Move to Amend
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 13.
LARRY HURLOCK, representing himself
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 13.
ROBERT BUSCH, representing himself
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 13.
KATE VEH, representing herself
Kenai, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated emphatic support for SJR 13.
SCOTT SHAW, representing himself
Soldotna, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated support for SJR 13.
PATRICK COYAVISTO, representing himself
Kenai, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated support for SJR 13.
MARK HAYES, Campaign Coordinator
Public Citizen's Democracy is for People
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 13.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:31:49 PM
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:31 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Wielechowski, McGuire and Senator French.
Senator Paskvan arrived soon thereafter.
SB 195-PROBATION AND PAROLE OFFICERS' CASELOADS
1:32:16 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 195.
1:32:22 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE, sponsor of SB 195, said the impetus for the
bill was concern about burgeoning caseloads for probation and
parole officers, and the possibility of establishing ratios. The
bill is intended to start a dialog with the Department of Public
Safety (DPS) and the Department of Corrections (DOC).
SB 195 would establish in statute a maximum of 60 cases for
probation and parole officers at any given time. Parole officers
in the Anchorage area are often responsible for more than 100
cases in prisons, jails, and community resident centers, leaving
little time to improve the quality of the individual that is
returned to civilian life. This legislation alone won't reduce
recidivism, but it can be part of the solution along with other
resources that provide evidence-based programing for offenders
and training for officers.
The PEW Center Public Safety Performance Project on States
reported that in FY08 about nine of every ten dollars spent on
corrections is devoted to state prisons, although nearly 70
percent of offenders are supervised in the community. The issues
associated with large caseloads include: an inability to do
field observations or home visits; an inability to attend court
hearings; and high officer turnover rates due to burnout.
SENATOR MCGUIRE reported that in the last five years, four other
states limited caseloads by statute and three of those states
set the limit of 60 parolees per officer. She concluded that SB
195 will start a conversation about the effectiveness and
systemic costs of the corrections system in this state.
1:39:45 PM
RONALD TAYLOR, Director, Division of Probation and Parole,
Department of Corrections (DOC), stated that working with the
sponsor and the committee will be a proactive opportunity.
CHAIR FRENCH asked how he came to be in his current position.
MR. TAYLOR related that he supervised the Alaska Alcohol Safety
Action Program (ASAP) for 18 years, and in September transferred
to DOC as division director. He noted that he also served as
executive director of the Board of Parole for three years.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he would be in charge of more than the
probation and parole officers covered under the bill.
MR. TAYLOR replied he was in charge of the field and electronic
monitoring officers covered under the bill, and the community
residential centers throughout the state.
CHAIR FRENCH asked about the different categories of
probationers.
MR. TAYLOR explained that there are three categories of
specialized field probation officer caseloads: sex offender,
enhanced supervision, and mental health. The enhanced
supervision caseloads include high-risk offenders.
1:42:56 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN joined the committee.
CHAIR FRENCH asked him to describe the duties of an
institutional probation officer.
MR. TAYLOR explained that they develop institutional programing,
classify offenders and ensure that the offender management plan
will help a person be successful when he or she is released from
the institution into the field. Responding to a further
question, he said that field officers definitely outnumber
institutional officers, but he didn't know the ratio. He was in
charge of field POs and the institution directors were in charge
of institutional POs.
CHAIR FRENCH asked where presentence report writers fit in.
MR. TAYLOR explained that each probation office has a
presentence writer.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if those positions would be covered by the
bill.
MR. TAYLOR replied that was part of the dialog.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Taylor to discuss what resources go into
writing a presentence report, and how it follows an offender.
MR. TAYLOR explained that the presentence report impacts how the
offender will be sentenced by the court and governs how he or
she will be supervised when released into the community.
CHAIR FRENCH related that Texas Representative Jerry Madden
opined that the vast majority of prisoners fall into one of two
categories: "people we're mad at and people we're afraid of." He
asked if the presentence report writer tries to sort these two
categories out.
MR. TAYLOR answered yes; the information in the presentence
report is used to develop a realistic case plan for a person who
is under institutional supervision and when he or she is
released.
1:47:43 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN asked how many more probation officers would be
needed to accomplish the 60 caseload goal
MR. TAYLOR replied the division was working on an estimate.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked how many POs there were statewide, and if
most had caseloads of about 100.
MR. TAYLOR offered to follow up with specific numbers for
institutional POs, electronic monitoring POs, and field POs. The
division had 142 individuals assigned to it, but that included
POs, criminal justice technicians and office support staff.
1:48:52 PM
LINDA GERBER, Probation Officer II, Department of Corrections,
said she had worked for DOC for more than 20 years in both the
institution and field, and had worked specialized caseloads in
mental health, sex offender, and substance abuse. She was
currently one of four POs who work the out-of-state unit
covering more than 1,050 prisoners. She described POs as ground
zero for implementing the plans for offenders, and observed that
quality time and sometimes training were in short supply.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what other tasks she would focus on if she
had fewer probationers to supervise.
MR. GERBER replied she would have more time to work with each
prisoner to ensure successful reintegration. This would include
discussions with the local field officer about available
resources for housing, jobs, and treatment.
1:53:13 PM
WARREN WATERS, Probation Officer II, Department of Corrections
(DOC), said he was an institutional PO, and had worked at the
Anchorage Jail for the past six years. His duties included the
supervision of about half of the 400 offenders that reside at
the community residential centers or halfway houses. These
offenders are a mixed bag of sentenced and un-sentenced
misdemeanants and felons. They all require some form of
supervision and work, but the heavy caseloads do not leave much
time per offender. A caseload of 100 calculates to just 4.5
minutes per day for each offender, and that doesn't include
administrative time. That isn't much time to make a difference
when the goal is to help offenders successfully reintegrate and
not recidivate.
1:56:01 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if other probation officers had similar
caseloads.
MR. WATERS said yes; the ten POs at the Anchorage jail supervise
roughly 900 offenders at any given time, and are also
responsible for the offenders at the halfway houses.
1:56:55 PM
TRAVIS MORRIS, Probation Officer II, Department of Corrections
(DOC), said he had been a PO about four years and was currently
assigned to the Anchorage field services office. His caseload
was over 100. He offered his belief that reducing caseloads
would give POs the ability to help an offender obtain
employment, interact with a counselor who was providing
treatment, and attend court hearings. Oftentimes the offender is
left to fend for him or herself and that typically leads to
recidivism. This affects POs and translates to high turnover
rates. Burnout is common.
Although field work is an integral part of field probation, it
is typically done in a reactive state. Reducing caseloads to a
manageable level will enhance community safety and
rehabilitation of the offender. Long-term benefits will be
reduced government spending, higher quality of life for the PO
and offender, and a successful, proactive offender monitoring
program.
2:02:45 PM
LEILA SHEFFIELD, Probation Officer II, Department of Corrections
(DOC), said she was a field probation officer assigned to the
adult probation field office in Bethel. Her caseload was 109,
two-thirds of which lived in the surrounding villages and
reported by phone and mailed a report each month. She explained
that DOC relies on Village Public Safety Officers (VPSOs) to
help monitor offenders residing in villages, but not all
villages are staffed with one.
She said her workday is typically spent on the phone, although
offenders who live in the Bethel area make office visits. These
offenders are assessed using LSI-R (Level of Service Risk
Assessment) tools, and this takes about 1.5 hours. If her
caseload were smaller, she would spend the extra time in the
villages developing relationships with treatment providers and
the elders. She described a recent case where a probationer was
not successful to illustrate the stress that POs are under. She
described her broad work experience with DOC over the last 20
years and stated strong support for SB 195.
2:07:35 PM
DONNA WHITE, representing herself, Anchorage, AK, said she was
the previous director of the Division of Probation and Parole
for DOC. She thanked the sponsor for introducing the bill and
opening the dialog, because the higher the caseload in the
field, the less proactive a PO can be with the offender. She
opined that this was the place to look if the state was
concerned about recidivism and interested in working toward
reentry. When caseloads are over 90, the PO is reacting to
violations as opposed to being proactive and identifying what
may become a violation. The reaction is typically to file a
violation report and return the person to jail, which does not
help recidivism rates. She concluded by expressing appreciation
that the Senate was willing to open the discussion.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked what the caseload trend was the last 10
years and if it might give an idea of where it would be in 3-4
years.
MS. WHITE related that in the 80s she worked in Kodiak as a
field PO and had a caseload of about 60. She speculated that it
may be between 75 and 90 today, and without a cap it could reach
140. She noted that specialized caseloads were already capped,
causing the non-specialized caseloads to consistently go higher.
And the more specialized caseloads, the fewer probation officers
to handle the generic caseloads. She also pointed out that the
type of offender had changed significantly since the 80s. They
are more violent and have less respect for authority.
SENATOR PASKVAN commented that it sounded as though the state
was behind the curve and that the trend would get worse for
probation officers.
MS. WHITE agreed.
2:13:06 PM
CHAIR FRENCH closed public testimony and remarked that the cost
to put more POs in the field may be a topic of conversation in
the budget subcommittee.
CHAIR FRENCH held SB 195 in committee.
SB 110-HUMAN TRAFFICKING/SEX OFFENSES
2:13:43 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 110.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI, sponsor of SB 110, stated that this bill
seeks to close a gap. Under current law, it is a class A felony
to compel someone to travel to Alaska for prostitution, adult
entertainment, or forced labor. However, it is not a violation
of the Human Trafficking Act to transport someone within the
state for the same purposes. Because the law only addresses
human trafficking across state lines, it essentially
discriminates against Alaskan residents. The evidence indicates
that huge numbers of young girls, Native girls in particular,
are being recruited from small Alaska villages to the state's
larger urban areas to become prostitutes. He noted a letter in
the packets from the chair of the Alaska Violent Crimes
Compensation Board stating that in the last few years the board
had received 23 claims from Alaska residents for compensation
for trafficking.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI provided some statistics. One in seven
children will be runaways before age 18. One in three teenagers
on the street will be lured into prostitution within 48 hours of
leaving home. Thirty percent of shelter youths and 70 percent of
street youths are victims of commercial sexual exploitation
according to the American Journal of Public Health. The average
age of entry into prostitution for girls in the U.S. is age 12-
14, and it's younger for boys. Research indicates that there are
a disproportionate number of Alaska Native girls and women
engaged in prostitution. SB 110 puts in-state human trafficking
on par with trafficking across state lines.
2:17:24 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked for a motion to adopt version M committee
substitute (CS).
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to adopt CS for SB 110, labeled 27-
LS0646\M, as the working document.
CHAIR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI explained that the proposed CS seeks to
address some of the concerns the administration had with the
bill last year. As a compromise the CS says that to be
considered human trafficking, a person must be moved over 100
miles within the state. The penalties were also increased from a
class A felony to an unclassified felony. Another new provision
makes it a higher penalty if the victim is under age 18 and four
years younger than the trafficker. Specifying the four-year gap
in age was to avoid capturing people in a dating relationship, a
19 year old and a 17 year old for example.
2:19:46 PM
DOUG GARDNER, Director, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, introduced himself.
CHAIR FRENCH highlighted the new provision addressing the age
difference in Section 2. He said he and the sponsor understood
that as the single most serious crime, it would be human
trafficking in the first degree.
MR. GARDNER offered to make the necessary changes.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he could see the gist that a predator
relationship would be a more serious offense than the
relationship that might be encompassed by what is now human
trafficking in the first degree where someone is age 19 and
someone else is age 17.
MR. GARDNER replied he understood what the committee wanted to
do.
CHAIR FRENCH confirmed that the committee would wait for the new
CS before taking any action on the bill.
2:22:24 PM
SUZANNE LA PIERRE, private attorney, Anchorage, AK, said she had
worked on the trafficking issue for about two years and she
believed that several points may have gotten lost in the
discussion. She explained that prosecution was only one of three
prongs for approaching the trafficking issue. The others were
prevention and protection, and Alaska laws have gaping holes in
those two categories. For example, neither current law nor this
bill provide a safe harbor for children under age 18 from being
charged or prosecuted for prostitution. She emphasized that
Alaska law needed a more victim oriented approach for situations
of forced labor and commercial sex, including a comprehensive
plan to provide victim services. She further suggested that the
bill should have restitution provisions and provide a private
cause of action for victims of all types of forced labor
trafficking.
She highlighted that there were both supply and demand issues
regarding prevention. She suggested cutting the demand by
expanding the definition of trafficker to include a patron in a
commercial sex exploitation situation and increasing the fines.
Then put the money in a designated trafficked victims' fund.
Also, patrons who have been charged with commercial sex
exploitations should be required to attend an educational
program, and they should be publicly shamed. On the supply side,
she suggested increasing education and work opportunities in the
villages so individuals would not be compelled to relocate to
urban areas.
MS. LA PIERRE encouraged the committee to look at model
legislation and work in partnership with organizations that work
on this issue.
2:27:47 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Public Defender, Public Defender Agency,
Department of Administration (DOA), stated that his comments on
SB 110 were a matter of record, but he wanted to reiterate some
concerns about unintended consequences. SB 110 not only brings
the human trafficking statute to an in-state issue, it also
broadens the definition by including the word "entice." He
opined that this was a different concept than the terms "compel"
and "induce" that were in current statute. That term is not
well-defined in this area and could broaden enforcement to an
unintended degree as well as subject it to constitutional
challenge, he said.
CHAIR FRENCH referred to page 1, [lines 12-13] that says a
person commits the crime if he or she "compels, entices or
induces" another person. He pointed out that the verbs were all
modified by the second half of the clause that says those things
are done to engage in sexual conduct in the state by force or
threat of force or deception. He asked if that affected his
analysis.
MR. STEINER said the unintended consequence is created when
"enticement" is put alongside "deception." Force or threat of
force are clearly wrongful, whereas deception can cover a wide
range of statements around the activity of labor and sexual
conduct, not all of which is defined in statute.
CHAIR FRENCH pointed out that the current statute makes it a
crime to compel or induce someone by deception.
MR. STEINER said inducing and compelling are the kind of
elements that would involve causing somebody to do something
that they were not seeking to do or would not otherwise do.
Enticing does not have that component. It may be somebody asking
about the terms of doing X activity, so there would be an
exchange of information. That is a demonstratively different set
of circumstances than compelling or inducing. Although the
difference is subtle, it can have a profound impact on how these
cases can be prosecuted.
MR. STEINER highlighted the difficulty between Sections 1 and 2
that was discussed earlier.
CHAIR FRENCH confirmed that would be fixed.
2:33:16 PM
DR. REGINA CHENNAULT, representing herself, Anchorage, AK,
stated support for SB 110. She said she was a trauma surgeon and
the physician member of the Violent Crimes Compensation Board
(VCCB), and had seen young boys and girls and women from around
the state who were enticed, induced and deceived with promises
of a better life into going with an abductor. These victims are
lured in and they end up in the emergency room with significant,
lifetime injuries. Once they leave the ER, they are coerced into
going back out on the street to sell drugs and themselves so
they can give money to the organizer of the ring.
2:35:57 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General representing the
Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), said DOL testified
on this bill last year to make the committee aware that these
acts were prohibited under the current promoting prostitution
statutes. Inducing someone who is under age 18 to engage in
prostitution is already an unclassified felony, and that crime
does not have the additional element of trafficking. She
reminded the committee that the prosecution has to prove each
element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked which statute she was referring to.
MS. CARPENETI replied AS 11.66.110 is promoting prostitution in
the first degree, and subsection (a)(2) prohibits promoting
prostitution if the victim is under age 18. AS 11.66.110(d)
states that a person convicted under subsection (a)(2) is guilty
of an unclassified felony.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there was an enticement section.
MS. CARPENETI answered no; it includes inducing or causing a
person under age 18 to engage in prostitution. Referring to AS
11.41.360(a), she said she reads "to compel, induce or entice
another person" to modify the phrase "coming to the state" and
"by threat, force, or deception" to modify once they are here
engaging in sexual conduct, adult entertainment or labor. She
said that's why there are two Acts; they modify conduct in two
different ways.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if she would agree that the current
human trafficking laws only address trafficking across state
lines.
MS. CARPENETI said yes, and then reminded the committee that
testimony last year from Detective Lacey indicated that child
victims generally were not enticed to go to Anchorage by a
promoter of prostitution. They went to visit family, were
abandoned for some reason and then became victims.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that the bill packets contained a PowerPoint
that Detective Lacey prepared.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there were laws on the books
regarding adult entertainment or compelling someone for labor in
the state
MS. CARPENETI offered to follow up with the specific citations.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI emphasized that SB 110 was much broader
than the existing laws regarding adult entertainment and
compelling a person to work across state lines. He asked if it
was accurate to say that there is not a law on the books that
deals with those situations in-state.
MS. CARPENETI agreed that was correct.
2:43:04 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced he would hold SB 110 in committee
awaiting a new CS.
SJR 13-AMEND U.S. CONST RE CAMPAIGN MONEY
2:43:31 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SJR 13.
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, sponsor of SJR 13, introduced the
resolution speaking to the following sponsor statement:
Many Americans recognize that the ability of large
contributions from corporations, wealthy individuals
and organizations to political candidates harms the
ability of citizens to have a voice in their own
government. Prior to the landmark United States
Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), unlimited
independent expenditures from corporations and unions
was prohibited. Now, corporations and unions can make
unlimited independent expenditures supporting or
opposing a candidate for public office. This directly
goes against the American idea of one person one vote,
when one corporation can spend more than thousands.
This decision only made the cynicism most Americans
feel about politics stronger. If people feel as if
their vote does not matter, then voter participation
will continue to decline.
The massive amount of money in politics following this
decision is exploding the expense of campaigns, making
it difficult for new or unknown candidates to enter a
race. More and more, the money spent by corporations
and unions is going to negative attack ads that often
misinform voters rather than promote productive
discussion. Allowing unlimited campaign donations by
corporations and unions takes the focus for candidates
away from individual voters to those whose money can
afford to sway hundreds of votes.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said there are only two ways to fix this
problem. Either the Supreme Court reverses itself or Congress
amends the U.S. Constitution. The first option is unlikely at
this point. Thus, SJR 13 urges Congress and the President to
work to amend the constitution to prohibit corporations, wealthy
individuals and unions from making unlimited independent
expenditures in elections.
CHAIR FRENCH stated that he couldn't agree more.
2:46:14 PM
CHRISTINA MOUNCE, representing the Juneau chapter of Move to
Amend, explained that the mission of this nationwide
organization was to amend the U.S. Constitution to limit the
amount that corporations can spend in elections. After the
Citizens United decision nearly $4 billion was spent during the
2010 congressional election, and according to the Center for
Responsive Politics, 85 percent of House seats and 83 percent of
Senate seats went to the candidate that spent the most money in
that election cycle. She said the playing field is no longer
level but in passing the resolution Alaska would be asserting
itself in support of fair campaigns and representation of
average Americans. She submitted a letter that was signed by 10
Juneau residents who were unable to attend the hearing but
supported SJR 13.
2:48:27 PM
LARRY HURLOCK, representing himself, said he was testifying to
highlight the harm that the Citizens United decision had done to
investors. He spoke of his expectations as a shareholder and his
fear of large bureaucracies hiding expenditures from
shareholders. Archer Daniel Midland (ADM), for example, reports
aggregated amounts for campaign contributions. The political
activism is hidden in plain view, he stated. Although ADM says
information about its spending is publicly available,
shareholders do not get an itemized accounting. He concluded by
stating support for SJR 13.
2:52:01 PM
ROBERT BUSCH, representing himself, stated that the Citizens
United opinion gave corporate personhood the green light to use
money as speech. Corporations now have the ability to spend
unlimited amounts of money to influence local, state, and
federal elections. According to Stephen Wayne, author of "The
Road to the White House 2012," 94 percent of candidates with the
most money were elected to Congress. The decision expanded the
divide between rich and poor by adding weight to the political
influence that overwhelmingly favors corporations. It will make
it increasingly difficult for the middle class to maintain
housing, get jobs, and deal with debt. He concluded by stating
that SJR 13 was a good vehicle to inform the public and those in
Washington D.C.
2:55:05 PM
KATE VEH, representing herself, Kenai, AK, stated emphatic
support for SJR 13. She asserted that her voice was being
drowned out by corporations, unions, and enormously wealthy
individuals who were donating vast amounts of money to
politicians. She maintained that this was corruption. As a proud
American she said she wanted three things: political leaders who
listen, political leaders who can manage money without relying
on global corporations, and a government that Americans can be
proud of.
SCOTT SHAW, representing himself, Soldotna, AK, stated support
for SJR 13. "We all believe corporations and unions are not
people and money is not speech." This notion has huge grassroots
support, he stated.
PATRICK COYAVISTO, representing himself, Kenai, AK, stated
support for SJR 13. He agreed with a recent statement by
Representative Les Gara that politicians should be elected on
their ideas, not the size of their own or their supporters'
pocketbooks. He maintained that more people would participate in
politics if corporations weren't so heavily involved.
3:00:18 PM
MARK HAYES, campaign coordinator, Public Citizens Democracy is
for People, said this organization is working to build public
support for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens
United decision and challenge corporate power in this democracy.
Taking the step to amend the constitution is timely, relevant
and impactful. Independent expenditures by special interests
have skyrocketed since the Supreme Court ruling, so it is
timely. It is taking away the state's ability to regulate
campaign spending, so it is relevant. With regard to impact, he
said that taking action on this resolution is a way to show
concrete political support at the state level for a
constitutional amendment. Congress is starting to move in this
direction, but without state support it won't go anywhere.
CHAIR FRENCH closed public testimony on SJR 13.
3:04:24 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to report SJR 13 from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection, SJR 13 moved from
the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
3:04:50 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair French adjourned the meeting at 3:04 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 195.PDF |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 195 |
| SB 195-Sponsor statement.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 195 |
| SB 195 backup NCSL.PDF |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 195 |
| SB 195 backup -ADN articles.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 195 |
| SB 195 letter of support.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 195 |
| SJR 13 Ver.M.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 13 |
| SJR13 Sponsor statement.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 13 |
| SJR13 ADN Editorial.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 13 |
| SJR13 Center for Responsive Politics article.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 13 |
| SB110 Version M (1).pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 110 |
| SB110.APOA Letter of Support.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 110 |
| SB110.Support Ltr.Violent Crimes Compensation Board.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 110 |