Legislature(2009 - 2010)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/03/2010 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| U.s. Supreme Court Decision - Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 3, 2010
1:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Hollis French, Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Dennis Egan
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator John Coghill
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Overview: U.S. Supreme Court Decision - Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission
HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN PTACIN, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Labor and State Affairs
Department of Law
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of the Citizens United
v. Federal Election Commission opinion and responded to
questions.
KATHRYN KURTZ, Attorney
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information related to the
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission opinion.
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of the Citizens United
v. Federal Election Commission opinion and responded to
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:31:13 PM
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:31 p.m. Senators McGuire,
Coghill, Egan and French were present at the call to order.
Senator Wielechowski arrived soon thereafter.
^U.S. Supreme Court Decision - Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission
1:31:22 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the business before the committee is to
hear an overview of the U.S. Supreme Court Decision - Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission ("Citizens United"). He
outlined what is in the packet including the Alaska statutes
that deal with campaign disclosure law, the memorandum from Mr.
Bullard with legislative legal services, and a pair of amicus
briefs to the Supreme Court representing both sides of the
debate. John McCain and Russell Feingold argued to keep the
rules in place before the decision was rendered, and the AFL-CIO
urged the Court to overturn its previous holdings and embark on
a new rule.
CHAIR FRENCH said this sweeping case will have great impact on
state law and it brings to mind a remarkable statement made by
Theodore Roosevelt in 1905. "All contributions by corporations
to any political committee or for any political purpose should
be forbidden by law."
1:33:38 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee.
KATHRYN KURTZ, Assistant Revisor of Statutes, Legislative Legal
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, said she was previously
the drafting attorney for campaign finance law. That is now Mr.
Bullard's position.
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, said the most significant element in
Citizens United is that it is a First Amendment case dealing
with political speech by corporations in the form of independent
expenditures. Those are made without the cooperation or
collaboration of a campaign, a candidate, or a political party.
"This is not a case that affects contributions to candidates."
Citizens United speaks only to independent expenditures by
corporations.
Previous to the Citizens United decision, and still in First
Amendment jurisprudence, much is determined by who is speaking.
Under the First Amendment speakers have different breadths;
speakers may be prisoners, students, foreign nationals, and
previously, corporations. The significance of Citizens United is
that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a speaker's corporate
identity is no longer a permissible distinction to regulate that
speaker's political speech in the area of independent
expenditure.
1:36:06 PM
Citizens United dealt with provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act (BiCRA), also known as the McCain-Feingold law,
including the prohibition on certain corporations and unions
from using monies from their general treasury to sponsor certain
electioneering communications in certain set periods before a
primary or federal election. The Court struck that down.
In striking down this provision, the Court went not to the
particulars of the law, but to the concept of the speaker's
corporate identity. This involved overturning previous precedent
set in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v.
Federal Election Commission. These fairly large cases had
created a permissible rationale for suppressing various
corporate speech in this venue. Also, in Citizens United the
Court upheld various disclosure provisions in BiCRA.
MR. BULLARD said that striking down the ability to suppress
speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity is
significant not just for what it does for federal elections; it
has a bearing on Alaska statutes that prohibit various corporate
expenditures in elections. "In light of this ruling those
statutes are not repealed, they're void." They will no longer be
enforced as written, Mr. Bullard stated.
SENATOR MCGUIRE asked if someone will walk through the
provisions of Alaska law that will be affected.
CHAIR FRENCH said yes; that was one of the questions he asked
legislative legal services to be prepared to discuss.
1:38:58 PM
JOHN PTACIN, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Labor
and State Affairs Section, Department of Law, Anchorage, said he
represents the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) and
staff. He highlighted that Citizens United affects neither the
law related to independent contributions to a candidate nor the
prohibition against corporations and labor unions from making
contributions directly to a candidate.
MR. PTACIN said this was a candidate election free speech case,
not a ballot measure case. Citizens United did not interpret an
Alaska law, but Alaska laws are certainly implicated because
U.S. Supreme Court constitutional decisions are the supreme law
of the land. States in this area do not have greater latitude
than Congress to abridge the freedom of speech.
Citizens United dealt not only with independent expenditures but
also with the reporting of those independent expenditures. The
ruling essentially overturned one aspect of independent
expenditure law, federal law U.S.C. 441b. That was a ban on any
express corporate or labor union advocacy for or against a
candidate made from a corporation or labor union coffer 30 days
before a primary election and 60 days before a candidate
election. The decision was specific to candidate elections and
has no bearing on Alaska ballot measure laws. The Court ruled
that the ban on corporations or labor unions making an
independent expenditure leading up to primary and general
candidate elections is in violation of the First Amendment.
1:41:40 PM
MR. PTACIN said one thing that is significant about the case is
that it does apply First Amendment rights to a corporation.
Citizens United as a corporation has certain legal rights
including limited liability and perpetual life. The Court ruled
that these favorable aspects were not a good enough reason to
strike down their ability to speak under the First Amendment and
that the First Amendment doesn't limit itself to personal
speakers. In the late '70s the Court determined that
corporations that it is actually looking at the specific
expression and not at who is making the expression when
determining whether a particular expression is afforded First
Amendment rights. In this case, making a communication
electioneering speech is essentially political speech and that's
afforded high constitutional rights.
The government tried three different arguments in an attempt to
save the law on compelling government interest grounds. One was
the anti-distortion interest argument that wealth dilutes the
message of others. That rationale had been approved by the Court
in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce in 1990. The essential
element is that accumulation of wealth has a corrosive and
distorting affect on the message. As a result of the ruling,
this is no longer a rational for disallowing corporations and
labor unions First Amendment political speech.
Second, they tried an anti-corruption interest as another
compelling government interest to save the law but the Court did
not agree with the rational.
The third argument was that shareholders are essentially
powerless to stop the message of the large corporation or labor
union. That too was struck down.
MR. PTACIN said the conclusion was that without a compelling
government interest, the law in its face was unconstitutional.
Now it constitutes the supreme law of the land.
1:44:01 PM
MR. PTACIN said DOL is currently reviewing the Citizens United
case to see if it impacts Alaska law going forward. DOL is
preparing internal decisions and determinations and looks
forward to working with the Legislature on determining the next
steps.
CHAIR FRENCH referenced the list of questions he had prepared
and noted that the biggest question is which state laws are now
"void" as a result of the superseding opinion by the U.S.
Supreme Court. He asked for a list of those statutes.
1:45:49 PM
MR. PTACIN named AS 15.13.067(a) [AS 15.13.067] and AS 15.13.135
[AS 15.13.135(a)]. Current Alaska law states that corporations
and labor unions may not make independent expenditures in a
candidate election. This gets to the distinction of what is an
expenditure and whether an expenditure is always considered
political speech. Given the definition of expenditure, he said
he would consider some of the definition to include political
speech. Some arguably is not, but DOL is working internally to
determine the extent to which there is a problem with the
definition and Alaska statutes.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if Alaska statures have the same limitations
as the federal government with respect to independent
expenditures by corporate and union money 30 days before a
general election.
MR. PTACIN replied the laws are not exactly the same. Alaska law
contemplates a ban on all independent expenditures by
corporations and labor unions. Federal law allowed PACS to be
formed and corporations and labor unions were allowed to speak
through that method. However, a communication that hits more
than 50,000 individuals would be considered banned speech under
the federal regime. DOL is currently working to reconcile the
Citizens United opinion and the internal DOL opinion.
CHAIR FRENCH commented that we've gone from a total ban to what
looks like a total free-for-all.
MR. PTACIN responded he is looking at what the law says about
disclosure and expenditure. The Court didn't interpret Alaska
law, but it is subject to constitutional scrutiny given that
Citizens United is the current law of the land.
1:48:48 PM
MR. BULLARD said he agrees with Mr. Ptacin, but the window that
was opened isn't as large as the absolute window of the
corporate form. Alaska law allows nonprofit corporations that
fit under the definition of non-group entities to make
independent expenditures. It isn't that all corporations were
previously prohibited. It was "those corporations that
participated in business activities who have shareholders who
had a claim on corporate earnings and were independent of the
influence of business corporations" that were prohibited.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he believes that in the 2010 election
cycle that any corporation doing business in the state of Alaska
is free to spend money advocating for or against individual
candidates.
MR. BULLARD replied it's difficult to speculate how Alaska state
courts will interpret this federal case. "It's a complex and
dynamic area of law and there may be other rationales that
support some of our existing legal rationales that support our
existing laws," he said.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if it will take subsequent legal action for
the Alaska statutes to be void or if they are already void by
virtue of the Citizens United decision.
1:50:56 PM
MR. BULLARD replied it is when an Alaska law is challenged that
a court will rule. Whether DOL will try to enforce a statute
that is arguably unconstitutional is a separate question that he
would defer to Mr. Ptacin.
1:51:37 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Ptacin his view.
MR. PTACIN said DOL acknowledges that the law is subject to
scrutiny and is reviewing how to go forward. DOL is working
diligently on the issue and an internal opinion on that point is
forthcoming.
CHAIR FRENCH asked for a timeline.
MR. PTACIN explained that DOL has been working on a related
matter since last November. The attorney general hasn't been
asked for a formal advisory opinion, but it may be an area where
it is appropriate. He declined to speculate as to when it could
be forthcoming, but given the time parameters it could be fairly
soon.
1:53:48 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he agrees that this opinion
overturned at least five prior U.S. Supreme Court opinions.
MR. PTACIN responded the two noteworthy opinions that the Court
overturned were aspects of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of
Commerce in 1990 and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission in
2003.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI added that Federal Election Commission v.
Wisconsin Right to Life, Federal Election Commission v.
Massachusetts Citizens for Life, and California Medical
Association v. Federal Election Commission were cited by the
dissent as cases that were either overruled or disavowed.
MR. PTACIN said the main holding in the Right to Life case was
that electioneering communication has to be explicit. The Court
overwhelmingly found in Citizens United that the communication
was electioneering communication so WRTL was not overturned.
Massachusetts Citizens for Life carved out the exception to the
law with respect to smaller corporations whose primary purpose
is for political speech, essentially nonprofits like the Alaska
non-group entity law. "I don't think that WRTL and MCFL were
essentially overturned by the Court's decision," he said.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if corporations exist only because
the state allows them to exist.
MR. BULLARD responded corporations are a legal fiction; they
exist by virtue of state and federal law.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the state could impose
restrictions and regulations on corporations if they're a legal
fiction.
MR. BULLARD replied there are a lot of different corporations so
it's difficult to provide a single answer. Some corporations
exist in an arena that is only spoken to by state law and some,
like a national bank, exist in a larger and more complex
environment.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI observed that the Supreme Court held that
corporations are entitled to First Amendment speech, but they
only exist by virtue of the state allowing them to exist. He
asked if there are federal corporations.
MS. KURTZ said the long standing language in USC 441b talks
about "any corporation organized by authority of any law of
Congress," but she doesn't know what corporations those are. The
main thing is that the U.S. Supreme Court defined a right to
speech in this area for corporations. It doesn't matter whether
the State of Alaska tries to legislate in Title 15 or in the
corporations code, we'll still encounter that right, she said.
1:58:24 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the state could say it didn't want
to allow corporations to exist.
MS. KURTZ replied, "The consequences of that declaration could
be quite wide ranging and interesting."
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if foreign stockholders in a
corporation could potentially influence elections under the
Citizens United case.
MS. KURTZ said the Court explicitly addressed foreign
corporations in its opinion saying that this provision doesn't
distinguish between foreign corporations and other corporations.
She noted that a provision in BiCRA does limit the ability of
those corporations to speak [in federal elections].
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if a foreign government could set up
a corporation in Alaska and attempt to influence elections under
Citizens United.
MS. KURTZ deferred the question because she isn't an expert in
corporate law.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Ptacin if he had an opinion.
2:00:22 PM
MR. PTACIN reiterated that Citizens United did not invalidate
USC 441e, which limits foreign nationals, including foreign
corporations, from speech in federal and state elections. DOL is
currently looking at the parameters of the federal expenditure
law that doesn't allow foreign corporations to speak in state
candidate elections. He opined that the public and Legislature
need guidance with respect to how far the federal law goes and
whether the State of Alaska wants to consider laws in this area
since it essentially has a ban on all corporate expenditures.
The question is if Alaska wants to distinguish between foreign
or out-of-state or in-state corporations. DOL is working toward
determinations in this area particularly with respect to federal
law and foreign national corporations, he said.
SENATOR COGHILL offered his understanding that PACs organized
under Section 527 of the federal tax code have not had their
right to speech challenged so this breaks a vale between
organizing as a political action and organizing as a
corporation.
MR. PTACIN responded that Citizens United said that a PAC was
not the same thing as a corporation; on a certain level it does
break the need for a corporation to form a PAC in order to speak
30 days or 60 days before certain elections.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if there will still be accountability as
to how [corporations and labor unions] speak.
MR. PTACIN said yes. He reiterated that DOL is looking at
current reporting laws for corporations and labor unions given
the present statutes.
SENATOR COGHILL said they're more restrictive than the
individual now and we want to make sure that they don't become
less restrictive than the individual.
MR. PTACIN clarified that "persons" is the law that applies when
Alaska statutes contemplate disclosure and disclaimer laws for
corporations and labor unions. Given that definition certain
laws apply to corporations and labor unions, and certain laws do
not. That will merit scrutiny going forward, he said.
2:04:25 PM
SENATOR EGAN queried what kind of corporations licensed in
Alaska can contribute.
MR. PTACIN clarified that the Citizens United case was about
independent expenditures made absent any coordination with a
legislator. The case did not determine that corporations can
make contributions directly to candidates.
SENATOR EGAN asked if DOL expects litigation.
MR. PTACIN replied it's difficult to say at this point.
SENATOR EGAN asked if APOC, which follows this on a day-to-day
basis, will look at this independently and separate from DOL.
2:06:20 PM
MR. PTACIN replied he works closely with APOC. Any advice he
gives the attorney general on the law going forward is after
consulting with APOC staff
CHAIR FRENCH reported that Tom Dosik from APOC had been
scheduled to testify, but a family tragedy prevented that.
SENATOR MCGUIRE observed that she sees nothing in the ruling
that does not allow the Legislature to require disclosure and
perhaps even some limitation of expenditures by for-profit
corporations in this state. However, she would like
clarification that if the Legislature were to do anything, that
it should at least look at disclosure and reporting requirements
so that these for-profit corporations aren't left in the dark.
MR. PTACIN said this area of the law does require scrutiny by
the Legislature and DOL as to which disclaimer and disclosure
laws apply to corporations today and which do not. A preliminary
analysis suggests looking at which laws apply to persons and
which do not. AS 15.13.040 subsections (c) and (e) say that
corporations and labor unions are required no later than 10 days
after an expenditure is made to report that expenditure.
CHAIR FRENCH cited subsection (d), "Every individual, person,
nongroup entity, or group making an expenditure" and asked if he
is putting unions and corporations under person, but not
individual because individual means a natural person. "Every
time I see "person" in these statutes I need to read in
corporation and union," he said.
MR. PTACIN said yes; the inverse is that when you don't see
"person" note that arguably that law may not apply to a
corporation or labor union at this time.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what disclosure rules apply to nonprofit
corporations that are allowed limited spending in elections.
2:10:36 PM
MR. BULLARD replied some nonprofits report under subsection (j)
of AS 15.13.040.
CHAIR FRENCH read subsection (j) and noted that he's saying that
"nongroup entity" means nonprofit. He asked if the disclosures
are required to be made electronically or on paper.
MR. BULLARD replied that is determined by AS 15.13.110.
MS. KURTZ deferred the question to Mr. Ptacin.
2:11:50 PM
MR. PTACIN said his understanding is that those are filed on
paper.
CHAIR FRENCH imagined that the Legislature will look at quicker
disclosure. Corporations have an enormous ability to amass
wealth so it's reasonable, if they want to participate in
elections, that they disclose frequently and in a manner that
gets the information to the public swiftly and without burdening
APOC staff, he said.
SENATOR COGHILL noted that electronic disclosure has been a work
in progress the last several years.
CHAIR FRENCH clarified that he's talking about disclosure by
candidates.
SENATOR COGHILL agreed, but under this [opinion] it would
involve all entities.
CHAIR FRENCH said he believes in electronic disclosure by
candidates, but he realizes that there have been roadblocks.
Some areas of the state don't have a lot of computers or phone
service.
SENATOR COGHILL said that might be something that comes back on
the radar.
CHAIR FRENCH clarified that his general point is that
corporations are in a uniquely strong position to have access to
computers and the Internet.
MS. KURTZ directed attention to AS 15.13.040(m) that talks about
electronically submitting information required under the
chapter. APOC could clarify how it is making that work.
CHAIR FRENCH said that may be the carve-out for candidates, but
he agrees that it leans toward electronic disclosure. He then
asked if there was anything in the Supreme Court decision or
anything in Alaska statutes that would prohibit the Legislature
from mandating disclosure of the three top contributors to a
group or sub-corporation so that the people understand the
funding source for advertisements.
MR. PTACIN replied the concern about formation of a different
group to essentially do the speaking merits scrutiny, but AS
15.13.074(f) currently bars corporations and labor unions from
making contributions to groups that are not ballot measure
groups. He also pointed out that what was taken up in Citizens
United was a corporation making independent expenditure speech
from its own coffer. It did not go further to talk about pass-
through issues.
2:17:06 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said he's trying to get behind the cover of the
corporation so that citizens know who the individuals or
corporations are that are advancing electioneering
advertisements.
MR. PTACIN said what's required of a corporation at this point
is outlined in AS 15.13.040(d) and (e). The Citizens United
decision did not address the areas that are contemplated as
corollary issues, but DOL is working on those, he said.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what, if any, limitations the
Legislature can place on corporations in regard to Citizens
United and campaign disclosure, reporting requirements, and the
ability to do advertizing when the corporation has foreign
shareholders.
MR. PTACIN restated that disclaimer and disclosure laws were
held constitutional. The laws that were contemplated under
Citizens United are similar to the disclosure and disclaimer
laws that Alaska puts on groups and nongroup entities at this
point. There is federal law and federal regulation on the
foreign national and foreign corporation issue and this case did
not determine any outward limit on disclaimer and disclosure.
The ruling was on the actual expenditure on speech.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the Legislature could pass a law
prohibiting corporations to advocate on behalf of candidates in
Alaska if foreign shareholders constitute a majority stake in
the corporation.
MR. PTACIN replied there is federal law on that matter and DOL
has to determine whether additional state law is at all
appropriate under BiCRA.
MS. KURTZ pointed out that AS 15.13.135 has some of the things
the committee is talking about but it doesn't apply to
corporations because existing Alaska statutes do not contemplate
corporations being able to make independent expenditures. "If
you're looking at how to fix the statutes to go in the direction
you're indicating, that might be a place to start," she said.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what in AS 15.13.135 ought to be changed.
MS. KURTZ replied the first sentence is directly contrary to
what came out of the Citizens United decision. It states, "Only
an individual, group, or nongroup entity may make an independent
expenditure supporting or opposing a candidate for election to
public office." That could be invalidated by a court decision or
the Legislature could look at it and realize it's not going to
work.
CHAIR FRENCH observed that you could write "person" into that
list so it includes corporations.
MS. KURTZ said she doesn't know if the solution would be that
simple, but this statute in particular talks about individual,
group, or nongroup entity. Some corporations are nongroup
entities, but only the small select group that meet MCFL
factors. It's been changed by the decision. The assumption that
only MCFL nongroup entity-type corporations could make an
independent expenditure is no longer valid. This statute is now
missing the disclosure and disclaimer requirements that it would
apply to the communication by an individual, group, or nongroup
entity. Corporation wouldn't obviously fall under that. AS
15.13.040 is a reporting statute so it's not clear. That's one
of the issues; corporations are persons, but person is not
included in AS 15.13.135.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the Legislature would need to
change AS 15.13.135 or if a corporation would need to request a
declaratory judgment.
MS. KURTZ replied it depends on what's going on, but a
corporation might say that AS 15.13.135 doesn't apply because it
doesn't say "person." "You can't assume that a corporation
interested in making an independent expenditure will just do
this," she cautioned. Legislative action is needed to make it
clear under AS 15.13.135 that corporations are supposed to do
this when they make independent expenditures.
2:24:35 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said that if the Legislature takes no
action, then a corporation is technically violating the law
under AS 15.13.135.
MS. KURTZ replied she wouldn't say that because she doesn't know
what they're doing.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if it would be a technical violation
of the law if the corporation was making an independent
expenditure supporting or opposing a candidate.
MS. KURTZ said given the Citizens United precedent, Alaska law
might be vulnerable. The Legislature can await that court
challenge or proactively amend statutes in light of this
decision. "This body does have the power to enact disclosure,
disclaimer, identification requirements; it already has, but
it's not clear under the existing statutes that those would
apply to independent expenditures by corporations," she said.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI observed that under current Alaska law
corporations have more freedom, more rights, and more ability to
campaign than individuals.
MS. KURTZ declined to answer without first thinking about the
implications of what he's saying.
MR. BULLARD said it's unclear how these statutes will be
interpreted in light of the Citizens United ruling. "A lot would
depend on the specifics and the facts in a given situation."
2:26:48 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said he tends to agree with the decision that
corporations have the right to speak, but there needs to be
accountability. If Alaska statute doesn't provide that
accountability it should be amended to include reporting,
identification, and whatever limits an individual may have so
that the constitution will apply.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI expressed the view that it's imperative; in
light of the decision, corporations have more rights to free
speech than ordinary Alaskans. "I think we need to change that,"
he said.
At ease from 2:28 p.m. to 2:31 p.m.
2:31:39 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE asked if there's been any thought given to a
dollar threshold limitation.
MS. KURTZ said in Buckley v. Valeo the U.S. Supreme Court upheld
a federal law that set limits on campaign contributions, but not
expenditure limits. Thus, there is a limit on what the
Legislature can do with expenditures despite the presence of
dollar limits with the contributions.
SENATOR COGHILL said that if corporations have the same capacity
to speak as an individual there has to be accountability and
reporting, but he'd have difficulty limiting what they can talk
about.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI expressed the view that this ruling is "the
worst case of judicial activism" he's seen in his lifetime. He
is interested in pursuing the issue of foreign companies and
foreign shareholders; in light of this ruling they can now
influence elections in Alaska. He requested that the committee
look into that issue because that's not what Alaskans want to
see.
2:35:09 PM
SENATOR COGHILL cited the PAC law and expressed the view that it
will be difficult, but he's willing to look into it.
CHAIR FRENCH read the following two selections from Justice
Stevens' descent, which he described as one of the great works
of his long and distinguished career.
In a state election … the interests of nonresident
corporations may be fundamentally adverse to the
interests of local voters. Consequently, when
corporations grab up the prime broadcasting slots on
the eve of an election, they can flood the market with
advocacy that bears 'little or no correlation' to the
ideas of natural persons or to any broader notion of
the public good, [494 U. S., at 660]. The opinions of
real people may be marginalized.
At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of
the common sense of the American people, who have
recognized a need to prevent corporations from
undermining self government since the founding, and
who have fought against the distinctive corrupting
potential of corporate electioneering since the days
of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to
repudiate that common sense. While American democracy
is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court
would have thought its flaws included a dearth of
corporate money in politics.
CHAIR FRENCH stated that over the next several weeks he will
work with the committee and legislative legal to craft laws to
contain this decision.
2:37:08 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair French adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 2:37 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|