Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/30/2001 06:00 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
April 30, 2001
6:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gene Therriault, Chair
Senator Randy Phillips, Vice Chair
Senator Rick Halford
Senator Drue Pearce
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Bettye Davis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 27(MLV)
Supporting the erection of monuments in Alaska, Russia, and Canada
to commemorate the World War II lend-lease program between the
United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
MOVED SCS CSHJR 27(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 177(STA)
"An Act placing certain special interest organizations within the
definition of 'group' for purposes of Alaska's campaign finance
statutes; and requiring disclosure of the true source of campaign
contributions."
MOVED SCS CSHB 177(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
HJR 27 - See State Affairs minutes dated 4/26/01.
HB 177 - See State Affairs minutes dated 4/19/01 and 4/24/01.
WITNESS REGISTER
Alexander Dolitsky
Executive Officer
Alaska-Siberia Research Center
P.O. Box 34871
Juneau, AK 99803
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HJR 27
Miriam Lancaster
Board of Directors
Alaska-Siberia Research Center
P.O. Box 34871
Juneau, AK 99803
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HJR 27
Kathryn Kurtz, Attorney
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Drafted HB 177
Brooke Miles
Assistant Director
Public Offices Commission
Department of Administration
2221 E. Northern Lights Room 128
Anchorage, AK 99508-4149
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 177
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-21, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN GENE THERRIAULT called the Senate State Affairs Committee
meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Present were Senators Phillips,
Pearce and Chairman Therriault.
The first order of business was HJR 27.
HJR 27-WWII ALASKA-USSR LEND-LEASE MONUMENTS
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said a proposed committee substitute (O
version) is before the committee; it changes awkward language.
He asked for a motion to adopt the O version.
SENATOR PEARCE moved the O version of HJR 27 dated 4/30/01 as the
working document. There was no objection.
ALEXANDER DOLITSKY, Chairman and Executive Director of the Alaska-
Siberia Research Center, testified in support of the proposed lend-
lease monuments in Alaska. Memorials would be erected in Fairbanks
and Nome first and then in Montana, Canada and Russia if there is
sufficient interest.
There has been overwhelming support from various organizations,
individuals, municipal governments and Alaska's Congressional
Delegation. They expect Russian President Putin and other Russian
agencies to be interested in the project and lend support.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether the wording changes in the
proposed committee substitute were acceptable.
MR. DOLITSKY said it's an important historical document that must
be accurate and he is pleased with the proposed changes.
He added he has been working with the governor's office on a
proclamation for the lend-lease day that would be announced on May
9, 2001, which is international victory day for World War II.
SENATOR PHILLIPS had no questions on the resolution but asked
whether there were women involved in transporting aircraft.
MR. DOLITSKY said women were involved and they talked with the
artist, Skip Wallen, about including women on the statue. However,
women were not involved in transporting aircraft on the flight legs
from Great Falls, Montana, across Canada and Alaska to the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics. Women pilots were actively involved in
transporting aircraft from Buffalo, New York to Great Falls,
Montana so placing them on the Alaska-USSR statue would be
inaccurate. Women pilots will be acknowledged on plaques but not on
the statue.
SENATOR PHILLIPS strongly recommended acknowledging the WACS
because they were involved.
MR. DOLITSKY agreed that they were involved and would be
acknowledged. Without their involvement and the lend-lease program
the outcome of the war could well have been different.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT moved amendment 1, which would add "Fairbanks,"
after "at" on page 1, line 14 of the proposed CS. There was no
objection.
SENATOR PHILLIPS suggested adding "Alberta" after "Edmonton" on
line 13 and "YT" after "Whitehorse" on line 14.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said for consistency, Russian locations might
also need more specific identification.
MR. DOLITSKY said that could be confusing.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said Senator Phillips would hold on the
amendment. There were no other amendments offered. He asked for the
pleasure of the committee.
SENATOR PEARCE moved SCS CSHJR 27(STA) from committee with
individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT noted Miriam Lancaster was on line and asked
whether she had any comments.
MIRIAM LANCASTER, board member of the Alaska Siberia Research
Center, testified in support of HJR 27. She is a Captain in the
United States Public Health Service and has worked and lived in
Alaska for over 21 years. This is a different type of memorial in
that it commemorates the synergy of combined efforts of pilots,
mechanics and the common people that worked behind the scenes
during the war. It also recognizes the role of women aviators who
flew the first leg of the journey in the lend-lease project. It
demonstrates the North America and Russian successes during a very
difficult time.
Number 840
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for objections to moving HJR 27 from
committee. There were none.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT recessed the meeting to the call of the Chair
at 6:10 p.m.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT called the meeting back to order at 6:20 p.m.
Present were Senators Halford Pearce, Phillips and Chairman
Therriault.
HB 177-CAMPAIGN FINANCE: GROUPS & DISCLOSURE
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT noted the proposed committee substitute (CS)
for HB 177. He asked the bill drafter to come forward and explain
the new sections encompassed in the CS because it takes the bill in
a different direction.
KATHRYN KURTZ, attorney with Legislative Legal and Research
Services and bill drafter, explained the changes in the R version
of HB 177. Sections 1 and 2 are unchanged. Section 3 is quite
different. Previous drafts made an addition to the definition of
group and the R version does not do this. It takes the same
language from the Alaska Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) court case
and uses it to define the term non-group entity. This is a new term
for the Alaska statutes but one the court discussed in the ACLU
case where they said those entities couldn't be barred from making
contributions and independent expenditures the way you can bar a
business corporation or union. It's now in the definition section.
There is the definition of non-group entity and the term "person"
has been amended to include non-group entities. "Person" can refer
to a corporation, a union or any kind of multi-member item as well
as a natural individual.
This bill would give non-group entities specific authority to make
campaign contributions and expenditures. This is done in AS
15.13.074 and 15.13.135 which are the specific sections addressed
in the ACLU decision. It also makes changes to AS 15.13.065(a) on
page 2, section 4, and 15.13.067 to make corresponding changes to
allow these entities to make contributions and independent
expenditures. Currently, groups and individuals have the authority
to do those things and this adds non-group entities to that list.
This draft also requires non-group entities to disclose the source
of contributions made to them of $100 or more for the purpose of
influencing candidate nominations or elections.
Buckley v. Valeo and the Veco International v. APOC case both
upheld disclosure requirements on the theory that there is a value
to having an informed electorate that knows where information comes
from. Draft R specifically creates a new subsection 15.13.040(j),
which requires reporting contributions over $100 and changes a
number of sections to require non-group entities to report the
contributions and expenditures made for the purpose of influencing
nomination or election of candidates. Sections 15.13.072,
15.13.082(b), 15.13.084, 15.13.090(a) and 15.13.110(a,b&f) fall
under the disclosure category.
The Alaska District Court Jacobus decision No. A97-0272-CV
discussed limits on contributions to political parties on pages 10
& 11 and concluded they could be limited for purposes of
influencing the nomination or election of candidates but not
necessarily for other purposes. Language in this draft comes from
that case.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked Ms. Kurtz to speak to the Jacobus
decision and the potential problems it held for the House version
of the legislation.
MS. KURTZ said the House version would have applied all of the
existing statutes relating to groups to non-group entities.
Specifically, that case held the existing statute limiting
contributions to political parties to $5,000 was over broad. It
attempted to regulate more than could be justified under the First
Amendment because there needs to be a compelling interest and the
statute must be narrowly tailored to serve the compelling interest.
The compelling interest would be avoiding corruption or the
appearance of corruption, which is fairly specific to candidates.
The court in Jacobus did not see a real threat in educational
efforts, get out to vote efforts and other political party efforts
and said the existing statute needed to be narrowed. The previous
draft could be susceptible to the same type of over-breadth
argument by regulating all contributions to and by non-group
entities.
Also limited are contributions by non-resident individuals and
groups for the purpose of the influence or election of candidates.
The limit is 10 percent of the contributions a non-group entity can
take within a year, which is similar to an existing statute
relating to political parties that was handled in the ACLU case.
The court held there was a sufficiently compelling state interest
for having that type of restraint on contributions.
Finally, this draft places a $500 limit on the amount of
contributions by non-group entities. That type of limit is
discussed in Buckley and ACLU and, to a certain extent, in the
Jacobus decision. 15.13.070 and 15.13.114(a) are being adjusted
because they relate to contribution limits.
The new draft attempts to address the over breadth concern by
speaking in terms of influencing candidate nominations or
elections. It also goes into specific sections and enables these
groups to make the independent expenditures and contributions the
ACLU Court said they must be able to make while putting the same
disclosure requirements on them that groups and individuals who now
participate are subject to.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for questions. He then encapsulated
saying we have statutes that deal with groups and with individuals.
The House bill proposed non-group entities be swept into the
definition of groups. Because of the Jacobus decision there are
potential problems with this due to over breadth.
There is written testimony from the Conservation Voters saying they
enjoy rights more along the lines of individuals. However, this
didn't work well because if the non-group entities were swept into
the definition of individuals, there would be no disclosure on the
source of funds because an individual giving a contribution does
not have to reveal the source of the funds so long as they are not
acting as a conduit. Therefore, a new category was created that has
some of the limitations that are applicable to groups and some that
are applicable to individuals. The new category has disclosure of
source of funds and places restrictions along individual lines as
to the quantity of those disclosed funds that may be passed along
to individual candidates.
There is no specific discussion about the right to make other
general contributions or expenditures in campaigns such as
education of voters and soft money types of expenditures.
MS. KURTZ said he was correct. There are several sections that are
specifically limited to influencing candidate nominations or
elections in an effort to tailor it to the over breadth concern
from the Jacobus decision.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said we are barred from placing many
restrictions on soft money contributions.
MS. KURTZ said that is strongly suggested by the Jacobus decision
and since it is an Alaska court making that decision, federal
precedent would be binding.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said a careful line has been walked between the
court decisions and the Conservation Voters legal opinion. The
Conservation Voters attorney testified at the previous meeting and
said the state did have a right to put some restrictions on
expenditures but they saw legal problems with the House version.
This version attempts to incorporate the most recent court decision
and is a fairly radical departure from the original bill. It
departs to a sufficient extent to require a title change.
Different groups around the state have been notified but have not
responded. He wanted committee members to have until the next
meeting to review the changes if need be.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked whether Representative Kott agreed with the
changes and he received a nod in reply.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked Brooke Miles from Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC) if she had any comments.
BROOKE MILES, Assistant Director with the Public Offices
Commission, testified via teleconference that she had no comments
beyond those given during the April 26, 2001 meeting. She did note
that this approach would result in some administrative costs to the
commission but the existing fiscal note would probably cover them.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that would be covered when the bill moved
to the finance committee. He asked whether she saw any technical
problems with the bill.
MS. MILES said at first blush she saw none. It appeared that the
Jacobus decision was incorporated when soft money for political
parties was addressed and that non-group entities would have the
limit of an individual.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether anyone else was online or in
Juneau that wanted to testify. There was no response.
SENATOR PEARCE moved adoption of the R version by Ms. Kurtz as the
working document. There was no objection.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for proposed amendments. There were none.
He asked for the will of the committee.
SENATOR PEARCE moved CS SCSHB 177(STA) and accompanying fiscal note
from committee with individual recommendations. There were no
objections.
He noted the concurrent resolution for the title change would be
sent directly to the Senate Secretary.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|