CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 119(STA) "An Act authorizing the Alaska Public Offices Commission to issue advisory opinions; amending campaign financial disclosure requirements and the limits on lobbyists' campaign contributions to candidates; removing municipal elections and municipal officials from the campaign finance and public official financial disclosure laws; amending campaign contribution limits; amending the time limit on contributions after primary elections; amending the complaint procedures of the Alaska Public Offices Commission; amending the definition of 'political party' for state election campaigns; relating to the crime of campaign misconduct; providing for increased use of electronic filing for reports to the Alaska Public Offices Commission; amending the definitions of 'administrative action' and 'lobbyist' in the regulation of lobbying laws; amending the requirements for the reporting of financial interests by public officials; repealing restrictions on solicitation and acceptance of contributions during legislative sessions and in the capital city; making conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date." This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance Committee. Co-Chair Wilken stated this bill "makes several changes to the statutes governing APOC [Alaska Public Offices Commission]." He indicated a proposed committee substitute, Version "Q". BROOK MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission, presented the bill and the proposed committee substitute, Version "Q". She informed that this bill is the result of numerous Commission discussions regarding "tools necessary to accomplish its mission and concepts to improve the disclosure laws." Ms. Miles stated this bill would "provide the foundation" for mandatory electronic filing under the campaign disclosure, lobbying and financial disclosure laws. Ms. Miles furthered that this bill would "codify" the complaint process and provides more restrictive timelines to ensure complaints reach final adjudication sooner. She also noted this bill would provide an expedited process that would include cease and desist powers for the Commission, with respect to alleged violations that if not restrained, could cause irreparable harm or materially affect the outcome of an election. Ms. Miles remarked this bill would require full disclosure of all campaign contributions and expenditures and would also require the occupation and employer information only for contributors who contribute more than $250. She noted currently this information is required of contributors of more than $100. Ms. Miles informed that the Commission's regulations governing exempt fundraising events, such as "selling hot dogs on the park strip for 25 cents," would become statutory through this legislation. She explained that in these events, the candidates must disclose only the number of participants and total contribution. Ms. Miles stated this bill would also raise campaign limits to keep pace with inflationary costs of conducting election campaigns. She noted candidates expending less than $5,000 on a campaign would be exempt from filing disclosure reports; an increase from the current $2,500 limit. She furthered that the" McIntire exemption", titled after a US Supreme Court decision, permitting individuals who distribute handbills or post yard signs, would be exempt from the campaign disclosure laws if they expend $500 or less, which she noted is an increase from the current $250 amount. She also said the amount of individual contributions to candidates or political action committees would increase from $500 to $1,000, and individual contributions to political parities would increase from $5,000 to $10,000, for reporting purposes. She summarized that the current contribution limits would double. Ms. Miles continued that this legislation would codify the Commission's advisory opinion request. She explained the Commission currently issues formal binding advice upon request under the campaign disclosure law; however, it was discovered that the Commission might not have this statutory authority. Ms. Miles stated that this bill would increase the lobbyist registration fees from $100 to $200 per lobbyist for each client in each calendar year. She pointed out this would generate additional program receipts for the Commission. Ms. Miles remarked this bill would increase the limit for filing sources of income under the financial disclosure laws for public officials and legislators from $1,000 to $5,000 and that ownership of stocks must be reported. She qualified that the filing requirements relating to gifts would not change. She noted that the process for filing disclosure reports would be streamlined. Ms. Miles concluded that the Commission "strongly" supports this legislation and is "eagerly seeking many of these tools" to assist in achieving its mission. Senator Taylor asked about prevision changes to prohibit or inhibit a wealthy individual from entering the State and "buying an election." He exampled the State of Washington and Marie Cantwell who ran for congressional office against Slade Gordon, utilizing $37 million of her own funds. Ms. Miles informed that the Supreme Court has upheld individuals' rights to make independent expenditures, and that the campaign disclosure laws permits independent expenditures by individuals or political groups. She agreed that a person with significant personal wealth could impact on a campaign. Senator Taylor therefore surmised that the campaign disclosure laws would only restrict middle-income candidates. Co-Chair Wilken clarified that the US Supreme Court prohibits such restrictions. Ms. Miles affirmed. Ms. Miles pointed out language in the bill changing the definition of "express communication" relating to issue advertising and issue advocacy. She informed that the existing definition provides that an express communication must include "vote for" or "don't vote for" "elect or reject, etc." She stated that a decision issued by the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and upheld in other proceedings provides that any inference of an express communication to encourage election or defeat of a candidate must be subject to campaign disclosure laws. Co-Chair Green clarified that the changes to financial disclosure requirements would also apply to the spouse of a public official. Ms. Miles replied that in Co-Chair Green's situation, income received from clients of her husband in amounts $5,000 and higher would be subject to disclosure. Ms. Miles added the current $1,000 amount has been problematic for State boards and commissions members. JOE BALASH, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, referenced Section 18 on page 15 of the committee substitute, Version "Q", which reads as follows. Sec. 18. AS 15.13.400(7) is repealed and reenacted to read: (7) "express communications" means a communication that, when read as a whole and with limited reference to outside events, is susceptible of no other reasonable interpretation but as an exhortation to vote for or against a specific candidate; Mr. Balash noted the Senate adopted this language unanimously in separate legislation of the prior session, although members of the House of Representatives expressed concern it might not be constitutional. He expressed that this language is necessary to prevent funding from sources outside Alaska used to influence elections. Senator Taylor challenged that regardless of specific language, the provision is useless if APOC requires several months to enforce violations. He asked whether this legislation would provide faster resolutions. Mr. Balash replied that this legislation contains a provision relating to expedited review of complaints. He commented that the Governor had proposed eliminating the APOC because "it was not capable of doing its job as a watchdog," and that this legislation provides APOC with the "powers and expectations to act swiftly when the timing is meaningful." Senator Hoffman asked how this could be accomplished given the negative amounts of the fiscal notes for this bill. Mr. Balash qualified that the fiscal notes must be substantially revised, noting the $500,000 reduction is in relation to the original version of the bill, which would have eliminated APCO and transferred its duties to the Lieutenant Governor's Office and the Attorney General. He informed that the Conference Committee of the FY 04 operating budget has restored some funding for administration expenses, and he expressed intent that the remaining $100,000 would be reflected in an updated fiscal note to reflect the increased lobbyist fees. Co-Chair Wilken asked if the provisions in Section 21 would generate the $100,000. This section on page 16 of the committee substitute Version "Q" reads as follows. Sec. 21. AS 24.45.041(g) is amended to read: (g) An application for registration as a lobbyist under (a) of this section or for renewal of a registration under (f) of this section is subject to a fee of $250 [$100]. The commission may not accept an application for registration or renew a registration until the fee is paid. This subsection does not apply to a volunteer lobbyist under AS 24.45.161 or a representational lobbyist under regulations of the commission. Ms. Miles estimated this provision would raise $50,000 or half the amount necessary. She explained this is due to the passage of other legislation that would exempt some parties currently lobbying from disclosure requirements and the registration fees. Co-Chair Wilken calculated the additional $150 per registered lobbyist would generate $50,000. Ms. Miles listed 70 professional lobbyists who would still be subject to the disclosure and registration requirements, and 114 part time lobbyists, of whom 75 would likely be exempt. Senator Hoffman suggested levying the registration fees on a percentage basis to offset the increased expenses. Mr. Balash informed that the viability of imposing a fee based on the percentage of a contract was researched; however, it would be difficult to ascertain which portion of the contract covers lobbying activities versus consulting. Co-Chair Wilken pointed out that if the fee were increased to $400, APOC operations would become revenue neutral. Ms. Miles affirmed. Senator Bunde questioned the use of "domestic partner". Ms. Miles relayed that the Senate State Affairs Committee preferred this terminology to, "spousal equivalent". Senator Taylor asked about a prohibition of full time lobbyists who are also married to or the domestic partner of a legislator. Ms. Miles replied that this practice is reportable but not prohibited. Without objection CS SB 119, 23-GS1090\Q was ADOPTED as a working draft. Senator Hoffman questioned language in Section 34, amending AS 39.50.030(b), on page 20 lines 22 through 27, which reads as follows. (2) the identity, by name and address, of each business in which the person, the person's spouse or domestic partner [SPOUSAL EQUIVALENT], or the person's dependent child has an interest or was a stockholder, owner officer, director, partner, proprietor, or employee during the preceding calendar year, except that an interest of less than $5,000 in the stock of a publicly traded corporation need not be included; New Text Underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] Ms. Miles explained the language relating to stocks was added due to situations in which filers hold portfolios including various stocks valued at less than $5,000 and the current requirement to delineate each company in which stocks are held. Senator Hoffman asked whether $5,000 is an adequate amount. Ms. Miles noted that the Commission originally suggested $10,000. Senator Taylor clarified that any businesses in which a dependent child is involved must be reported. Ms. Miles affirmed that the filer must name any business in which an interest is held by that party his or her spouse and dependent children. She noted this applies to all businesses regardless of income generated to the filer, spouse or child. Senator Taylor commented that filers are allowed to repeatedly amend their disclosures if the information is not original declared. Ms. Miles affirmed. Senator Olson asked how this legislation relates to other legislation that changed the definition of lobbyist. Ms. Miles stated that some parties currently registered as lobbyists would not longer be required to register as such and subsequently would not be restricted as lobbyists from making campaign contributions. Co-Chair Wilken asked the impact of this legislation on municipal elections. Ms. Miles answered that the committee substitute makes no changes relating to municipal elections. STEVEN CONN, Alaska Public Interest Research Group, testified via teleconference from Seward to note this bill originally intended to eliminate APOC, and then was amended to change the definition of lobbyist to allow many to contribute to campaigns outside of the election district in which they reside. SFC 03 # 95, Side A 11:16 AM Mr. Conn requested the bill be held until the following legislative session to await the outcome of other legislation relating to a sales tax and how lobbyists impact that legislation in determining which parties are exempt from a sales tax. DAVID FINKELSTEIN testified via teleconference from an offnet location to ask whether municipal government would be allowed to "opt out" of the provisions of this bill. Ms. Miles reiterated that the provisions relating to APOC governing of municipal elections would be unchanged by this bill. Mr. Finkelstein referenced written testimony submitted to a prior version of the bill [copy not provided] and indicated he would direct his comments to items included in the committee substitute. Mr. Finkelstein objected to the increased contribution amounts, noting the individual contribution amount would increase to the amount allowed prior to a ballot initiative and subsequent legislation intended to limit the influence of parties outside the State on elections. He reported that the number of individual contributions from Alaskan residents has increased and he requested the current language remain unchanged. Mr. Finkelstein requested the contribution limits of groups remain the unchanged. He also opposed the changes to the lobbyist definition pointing out that prior to the 1995 legislation, lobbyist contributions constituted a considerable portion of campaign funding and was suspected to be a "pass through" of funding from lobbyists' clients. ANDREE MCLEOD testified via teleconference from Anchorage from "the people's point of view". She read her written testimony into the record as follows. By raising the contribution limits, you're impacting what economists call the limit price. It's usually done in order to bar others from entering a market. Increasing the limit price discourages competition. By increasing the contribution limits, you increase the price of campaigns, and decreasing competition for the seats up for election, and barring others from entering races. Why the need for the increase? I just ran a race. I had enough to buy signs, flyers and I walked door to door every night. More money only buys more TV and Radio and newspapers. That space is finite. Let's face it, any more political advertisement and you get what economists call negative externalities. Seeing and hearing your voice will actually discourage people from voting for you or anyone else. People are already turned off by politicians, raising the limits will only increase the negative feelings they hold towards politics. If contributors have this compelling need to give more money, there are enough charities in the world to satisfy their urge. st If they want to exercise their 1 amendment right of free speech by handing out more money, let them satisfy it by giving it to the general fund, in your name. Also, what you are doing is barring others from running against you and, I have to say, that is a conflict of interest. Now to the subject of redefining what a lobbyist is. Increasing the numbers of hours to 16 will allow lobbyist to speak to you 64 times, at 15 minutes at a time. Does that really satisfy the purpose of the lobbying statute, which you've sworn to protect for us. NO it does not. Does that really protect our rights to know who's influencing you when it comes to formulating public policy? No it does not. What about state administrators? They have a need to also know who lobbyists are and if they're dealing with someone that has only their clients interest in mind. With a list of lobbyists kept at APOC, that information is but a few clicks away. And that makes for an efficient and accountable government. There are many compelling reasons to keep the number of hours low. But the most compelling is that increasing the number of hours allows lobbyist to participate in campaigns. And having the public not know who the people are that have one pocket full of money and the other full of chits will lead us to corruption of the system. Is that what you want? I don't think so. Fix APOC if that's your intent, but please, for gods sake, don't gut lobbying laws in the process. Add both the increased contribution limits with the redifinition of lobbyists and you end up with one huge negative externality. That is a legislature peopled with officials elected from the same pools of money, resulting in a decreased number of legislators coming from varied human experiences. End result, mob mentality and no innovative thinking. If that's where you want Alaska to go, then by all means, vote to increase the limits, shove lobbyists in the dark caverns of the political process, and bar the ordinary, average Alaskan from entering any race from here on in. Leaving that kind legacy is not something to be par of, or proud of. Senator Bunde referenced the saying, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and asserted that he could not be "bought" for $1000 or $5000 and that not all campaigns are lost because of money. Senator Taylor noted the witness' comments were submitted in written format [copy on file]. Co-Chair Green commented that arbitrarily established low contribution amounts is "insurance" for incumbents. She surmised that increased contribution allowances would allow challengers to wage more competitive campaigns. She opined that the proposed adjustments are reasonable. Mr. Balash spoke to Mr. Finkelstein's comments, pointing out that over $2.5 million raised by candidates during the previous election was not reported because it consisted of contributions of less than $100. Senator B. Stevens clarified that currently contributions of less than $100 must be reported although the name of the contributor did not. Ms. Miles affirmed. Senator B. Stevens asked if current statute stipulates that a candidate is limited to the total amount of cash contributions received. Ms. Miles replied that a candidate is not limited in the total amount of contributions of less than $100 that could be received. She specified that a candidate could not receive more than $100 from one contributor in a calendar year without reporting that contributor. Senator Hoffman asked if the allowable contribution that a group that is not political party could make to a political party would increase from $1,000 to $4,000. Ms. Miles affirmed. Senator Hoffman asked whether this would be the largest percentage increase of allowable contributions. Ms. Miles again affirmed. Senator Taylor spoke to the concern over the small contributions and questioned the cost benefit of requiring candidates to report each contributor. He suggested the only benefit of the reporting requirements has been to allow opponents to ascertain the amount of funds raised to allow them to counter their fundraising efforts. He opined that this legislation is not adequate in addressing the situation, characterizing the system as "terribly unbalanced." He explained that wealthy candidates could contribute an unlimited amount, while "unwealthy candidates" are restricted in the amount of funds they could receive. Amendment #1: This amendment lowers the amount of allowable contribution from a group that is not a political party to a political party from $4,000 to $2,000. The amendment changes language in AS 15.13.070(c)(3) in Section 9 on page 6 line 28 of the committee substitute. Senator Hoffman moved for adoption. Co-Chair Wilken objected. Senator Hoffman noted this amendment would allow an increase of twice the current amount, rather than a fourfold increase as proposed in the committee substitute. Senator Bunde asked for a response from APOC. Ms. Miles stated larger increase was proposed in "deference to the political parties themselves and what they stand for and what they try to accomplish". Senator Hoffman commented on the options of groups that are not a political party to contribute to a candidate, another group or a political party. A roll call was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Senator Hoffman and Senator Olson OPPOSED: Senator Taylor, Senator Bunde, Senator B. Stevens, Co- Chair Green and Co-Chair Wilken The motion FAILED (2-5) The amendment FAILED to be adopted. Amendment #2: This amendment increases the allowable amount of interest in the stock of a publicly traded corporation exempt from reporting requirements by a public official or candidate from $5,000 to $10,000. The amended language of Section 34. AS 39.50.030(b)(2) on page 20 lines 22 - 27 reads as follows. (2) the identity, by name and address, of each business in which the person's spouse or domestic partner [SPOUSAL EQUIVALENT], or the person's dependent child has an interest or was a stockholder, owner, officer, director, partner, proprietor, or employee during the preceding calendar year, except that an interest of less than $10,000 in the stock of a publicly traded corporation need not be included; New Text Underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] Senator Hoffman moved for adoption noting this is the amount originally requested by APOC. Co-Chair Wilken objected. Senator B. Stevens asked when the increase was reduced to $5,000. Mr. Balash replied that the current amount is $1,000, the Senate State Affairs Committee increased then amount to $10,000 and that the draft committee substitute reduced each $10,000 amount to $5,000 in this legislation. He explained this was done "for no particular reason" beyond "being uniform across the board." Co-Chair Wilken removed his objection to the adoption of the amendment. Senator Taylor offered a motion to amend the amendment to replace "$5,000" with "$10,000" wherever it appears in the committee substitute. Co-Chair Wilken objected, stating preference for addressing each item individually. Senator B. Stevens pointed out the amendment applies to financial disclosures by legislators and public officials and asked for a detailing of what the amendment to the amendment would affect. Mr. Balash explained the amendment to the amendment would change limits pertaining to loans, loan guarantees, fiduciary relationships, as well as income reporting requirements. Senator Taylor WITHDREW his motion to amend the amendment without objection. The amendment was ADOPTED without objection. Amendment #3: This amendment increases the amount of certain income that must be reported by legislators, public members of the committee, and legislative directors to APOC, from $5,000, as proposed in the committee substitute, to $10,000. The amended language of Sec. 30. AS 24.60.200 (2) on page 19 lines 18 - 24 reads as follows. (2) as to income in excess of $10,000 [$1,000] received as compensation for personal services, the name and address of the source of the income, and a statement describing the nature of the services performed; if the source of income is known or reasonably should be known to have a substantial interest in legislative, administrative, or political action and the recipient of the income is a legislator or a legislative director, the amount of income received from the source shall be disclosed; The amended language of Sec. 34. AS 39.50.030(b)(1), (4) and (5) on page 20, lines 17 - 21, and page 21, lines 5 - 20 reads as follows. (1)The source of all income over $10,000 [$1,000] during the preceding calendar year, including taxable and nontaxable capital gains, received by the person, the person's spouse or domestic partner [SPOUSAL EQUIVALENT], or the person's dependent child, except that a source of income that is a gift must be included if the value of the gift exceeds $250; … (4)[5] the identity of each trust or other fiduciary relation in which the person, the person's spouse or domestic partner [SPOUSAL EQUIVALENT], or the person's dependent child held a beneficial interest exceeding $10,000 [$1,000] during the preceding calendar year, a description and identification of the property contained in the each trust or relation, an the nature and extent of the beneficial interest in it; (5)[6] any loan or loan guarantee of more than $10,000 [$1,000] made to the person, the person's spouse or domestic partner [SPOUSAL EQUIVALENT], or the person's dependent child, and the identity of the maker of the loan or loan guarantor and the identity of each creditor to whom the person, the person's spouse or domestic partner [SPOUSAL EQUIVALENT], or the person's dependent child owed more than $10,000 [$1,000]; this paragraph requires disclosure of a loan, loan guarantee, or indebtedness only if the loan or guarantee was made, of the amount still owing on the loan, loan guarantee, or indebtedness was more than $10,000 [$1,000] at any time during the preceding calendar year. New Text Underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] Ms. Miles briefly explained the components of the amendment. Senator Hoffman clarified that each component of the amendment would increase the amount to that recommended by APOC. Ms. Miles affirmed. Senator Taylor moved for adoption. There was no objection and the amendment was ADOPTED. Senator Taylor asked if other provisions in the committee substitute reduce the proposed increase from $10,000 to $5,000, as contained in the original bill. Mr. Balash responded that other references to dollar amounts relate to campaign contributions rather than financial disclosures of candidates and public officials. Senator Olson asked the total amount of all contributions reported from the previous election to compare with the $250 million amount of total contributions of less than $100. Mr. Balash stated that some campaigns received a higher concentration of the smaller contributions. Ms. Miles listed $11,370,000 as the amount contributed to all campaigns in the 2002 general election. Co-Chair Green asked whether the committee substitute would require reporting of the name, address and employer of all contributors regardless of the donation amount. Ms. Miles responded that the name and address would be required. She noted this change would be enacted through the deletion of current statutory language. Co-Chair Green commented that many people wish to contribute smaller amounts to campaigns but do not want their name associated with political activities. She questioned the need for the provision requiring that all contributors' names be reported. Ms. Miles responded that currently, candidates are required to maintain a record of the names of all contributors, regardless of the amount of a contribution. She stated this information is not required in the disclosure report, but must be made available to APOC in the event of a requested audit. She explained the proposed change to include this information in the disclosure report is an attempt to "rein in" the number of audit requests as well as to be compatible with electronic campaign software programs. She qualified that the names of contributors giving less than $50 at "high volume low cost fundraising events" would not be made public. Senator Bunde understood the desire of contributors of small amounts to be exempt from the reporting requirements; however, he pointed to the significant percentage of the total contributions that are less than $100 each. He opined that the "greater good would outweigh the concern of the individual for privacy." Senator B. Stevens asked if the $11.3 million raised during the previous campaign included statewide elections or only legislative elections. Ms. Miles replied this amount includes statewide elections. Senator B. Stevens asked the amount raised for statewide elections and the amount raised for legislative elections. Ms. Miles did not have the information. Senator B. Stevens surmised the significant portion of the total funding was related to the three statewide seats decided in the previous election. Ms. Miles agreed and approximated that the "main" candidates for these seats expended $1.5 million each. Senator B. Stevens favored full disclosure. He asserted that candidates are aware of the names of each contributor, as they write thank you notes to every person who donates to their campaign. Therefore, he stated reporting this information would not be an added burden. Senator Hoffman agreed with Co-Chair Green that the purpose of disclosure is to identify large contributors and perhaps show who could be "buying influence". He reiterated that many contributors do not wish to be affiliated with any campaign and predicted that the number of smaller donations could "dramatically" reduce if individuals knew their names would be made public. Senator Bunde remarked that ten employees of one company each contributing $99 equals almost $1,000 and is therefore a large contributor. He suggested that people not wishing to be "counted" could instead "provide sweat equity" such as posting signs, distributing flyers, etc. Senator Olson opined that if the goal is to support participation, the process should provide encouragement for contributors. Otherwise, he cautioned that only the "big players" would be involved. Senator Taylor exampled inviting the community to a "hot dog and chili feed" with a basket set out to accept contributions, which would be received in checks or cash. He asked how candidates would be expected to account for cash received at these functions. He also expressed concern about accounting for sales of $1 raffle tickets. He warned that failure to accurately account for each of these contributions would result in a candidate's opponent "vilifying" them in the media and insinuating that the candidate was accepting $50,000 in "some back room". Amendment #4: This amendment restores and amends statutory language removed by this legislation thereby increasing from $100 the required contribution amount each candidate must report. The amended language in Section 2. AS 15.13.040(a)(1)(C) and Section 3. AS 15.13.040(b)(3) on page 3, lines 11 - 15 and lines 26 - 31 and page 4, lines 1 and 2 reads as follows. (C) and for all contributions in excess of $999 in the aggregate a year, the name, address, [PRINCIPAL OCCUPATION, AND EMPLOYER OF THE CONTRIBUTOR AND THE] date, and amount contributed by each contributor; and … (3) and for all contributions in excess of $999 in the aggregate a gear, the name, address [PRINCIPAL OCCUPATION, AND EMPLOYER OF THE CONTRIBUTOR, AND THE] date, and amount contributed by each contributor and, for contributions in excess of $250 in the aggregate during the calendar year, the principal occupation and employer of the contributor [; FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PARAGRAPH, "CONTRIBUTOR" MEANS THE TRUE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS, PROPERTY, OR SERVICES BEING CONTRIBUTED]; and New Text Underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] Senator Taylor moved for adoption. Co-Chair Wilken clarified the intent is to restore the existing provisions in statute. SFC 03 # 95, Side B 12:03 PM Mr. Balash offered suggestions as to how the low cost fundraising activities could be exempt from the individual contribution reporting requirements. Co-Chair Green questioned the deletion of "principal occupation and employer of the contributor." Without objection, Senator Taylor WITHDREW his motion to adopt the amendment. Amendment #5: This amendment restores statutory language removed by this legislation relating to the required contribution amounts each candidate must report. The amended language in Section 2. AS 15.13.040(a)(1)(C) and Section 3. AS 15.13.040(b)(3) on page 3, lines 11 - 15 and lines 26 - 31 and page 4, lines 1 and 2 reads as follows. (C) and for all contributions in excess of $100 in the aggregate a year, the name, address, [PRINCIPAL OCCUPATION, AND EMPLOYER OF THE CONTRIBUTOR AND THE] date, and amount contributed by each contributor; and … (3) and for all contributions in excess of $100 in the aggregate a gear, the name, address [PRINCIPAL OCCUPATION, AND EMPLOYER OF THE CONTRIBUTOR, AND THE] date, and amount contributed by each contributor and, for contributions in excess of $250 in the aggregate during the calendar year, the principal occupation and employer of the contributor [; FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PARAGRAPH, "CONTRIBUTOR" MEANS THE TRUE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS, PROPERTY, OR SERVICES BEING CONTRIBUTED]; and New Text Underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] Senator Taylor moved for adoption. Senator Taylor explained that a contribution of less than $100 could be received without the candidate reporting the name of the contributor. However, he noted the candidate must keep record of the name of that contributor in the event that person contributed additional funds, which would raise the total contribution to an amount in which the name must be reported. Co-Chair Wilken asked if this reflects current practice. Ms. Miles affirmed. Co-Chair Green referenced Section 2. AS 15.13.040(a)(1)(D) on page 3, lines 15-17, which reads as follows. (D) for contributions in excess of $250 in the aggregate during a calendar year, the principal occupation and employer of the contributor; and New Text Underlined Co-Chair Green questioned why the name and address of the contributor and the date the contribution is received is not included in this language. Ms. Miles detailed that if this amendment were adopted, a candidate receiving a contribution of $100 or less would be required to report the amount of the funds received and record the name of the contributor. She continued that a candidate receiving a contribution of between $100.01 and $250 must report the name and address of the contributor. Contributions of more than $250, she furthered, would require the reporting of the name, address, occupation and employer of the contributor. Senator Bunde objected to the adoption of the amendment. Senator Taylor pointed out this amendment would increase the amount of an allowable contribution requiring the reporting of a contributor's occupation and employer from over $100 to over $250. Ms. Miles restated her interpretation of the amendment at Senator Hoffman's request. Senator Bunde spoke to his objection. He understood individuals' concern for privacy, but asserted that to participate in the political process, people must be willing to "acknowledge" their involvement. He questioned the reason for exempting one-fifth of the total campaign contributions. He also noted this information is available to the public if an audit is requested and therefore contributors are "given a false illusion of privacy." Senator Olson stressed that most rural residents do not have bank accounts and operate on a "cash economy" and that the reporting requirements would be cumbersome. Senator Taylor agreed with the arguments in favor of full disclosure; however, remarked that the "most zealot advocates" of disclosure realize the "diminimous" returns on some contributions. Senator B. Stevens stated he objected to the amendment because it would provide no limitation to the amount an individual could contribute to a campaign. A roll call was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Senator Hoffman, Senator Olson, Senator Taylor, Co-Chair Green and Co-Chair Wilken OPPOSED: Senator Bunde and Senator B. Stevens The motion PASSED (5-2) The amendment was ADOPTED. Senator Taylor offered a motion to report the committee substitute, as amended from Committee with individual recommendations and new fiscal note. Without objection CS SB 119 (FIN) MOVED from Committee with fiscal note dated 5/14/03 for $100,000 from the Department of Administration.