HB 157-APOC; REPORT REFERENDA/RECALL CONTRIBUTOR  4:00:53 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 157, "An Act requiring the disclosure of the identity of certain persons, groups, and nongroup entities that expend money in support of or in opposition to an application filed for a state referendum or recall election; and providing for an effective date." 4:01:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE SARA RASMUSSEN, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor, introduced HB 157. She conveyed that the proposed legislation would move the statutory boundary for disclosing certain contributions and expenditures from those made to influence a referendum or recall election to an earlier point in the statutory process. It would require the reporting of certain campaign finance activity prior to the collection of signatures, she said. This would align both the recall/referendum reporting requirements with reporting requirements for ballot initiatives. She noted that an article from the Alaska political blog, "the Alaska Landmine,alerted her to the issue. She concluded that Alaskans deserved to know who was funding any referendum or recall election. She pointed out that financial contributions were a significant part of relaying a campaign message or successfully collecting signatures. She said she hoped the bill would make the process more transparent. Further, she believed that aligning [reporting] requirements would create less confusion for those working on recall/referendums or ballot initiatives. 4:03:13 PM CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff, Representative Sara Rasmussen, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Rasmussen, prime sponsor, presented a sectional analysis of HB 157 [included in the committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Sections 1: AS 15.13.010(b) Applicability related to  State Election Campaigns. Adds language related to initiative proposal, referendum, and recall applications. Sections 2: AS 15.13.050(a) Registration before  expenditure. Adds language related to referendum and recall applications. Sections 3: AS 15.13.065(c) Contributions. Adds language related to referendum and recall applications. Sections 4: AS 15.13.110(e) Filing of Reports.  Rewrites the language related to those receiving or making expenditures to support or oppose referendums. This language is identical to the language contained in AS 15.13.040(k) for ballot proposition reporting requirements and AS 15.13.110(g) for ballot initiative reporting requirements. Sections 5: AS 15.13.110 Filing of Reports. Adds a new subsection (k) for those receiving or making expenditures to support or oppose a recall. This language is identical to Section 4 of this bill and AS 15.13.040(k) for ballot proposition reporting requirements and AS 15.13.110(g) for ballot initiative reporting requirements. Sections 6: AS 15.13.400(4) Definitions. Modifies the definition of "contributions" to include groups and referendum and recall applications. Sections 7: AS 15.13.400(7) Definitions. Modifies the definition of "expenditures" to include referendum and recall applications. Sections 8: AS 15.13.400(7) Definitions. Modifies the definition of "group" to include referendum and recall applications. Sections 9: Uncodified law. States that this Act applies only to referendums or recalls that are filed on or after the effective date of this Act. Sections 10: Provides for a January 1, 2022 effective date. 4:06:19 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that the current campaign [to recall the governor] had been "front and center." He said he was always struck by the gaping loophole in the laws and believed that fixing [that loophole] would make sense for all parties. 4:06:53 PM SCOTT KENDALL, informed committee members that he worked as an attorney in Anchorage but was testifying in a personal capacity. He pointed out that there were people on both sides of a current effort [to recall Governor Mike Dunleavy]; nonetheless, the proposed legislation would treat both sides equally. He emphasized that regardless of the political affiliation, [HB 157] would keep everyone honest. He conceded that he might seem like an odd advocate for the bill. He disclosed that he was one of the authors of Governor Dunleavy's recall and one of the attorneys who successfully challenged the denial of that recall; additionally, he said he had personally donated funds to the recall campaign. He noted that he was also one of the authors of Alaska Ballot Measure 2 in 2020 [Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative] that promoted election transparency. He conveyed that he found it evident from his experience as a campaign and elections attorney that the current void in the law harmed the public overall by shielding political activities from disclosure, which led to needless controversy and speculation. He stated that Alaskans had a right to transparency. He opined that all organizations supporting or opposing Governor Dunleavy's recall campaign were complying with current law; however, the law lacked disclosure requirements. He acknowledged the public attention regarding the lack of financial transparency from the "Recall Dunleavy" movement and drew attention to an equally troubling detail, explaining that when a public official was under recall, that public official could solicit unlimited donations from virtually any source without disclosure. He characterized the loophole in the law with respect to the finances of recall elections and referendums as "incredibly harmful," adding that it undermined the public's faith in elections. He said regardless of the individuals who may be involved in a future recall, his opinion was that the status quo was untenable. He said [the loophole] was a "massive blind spot" for the public; further, that it created an unacceptably high risk of potential corruption and undue influence on sitting elected officials. For those reasons, he urged [committee members'] to support the proposed legislation. 4:10:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY thanked the bill sponsor and agreed that there seemed to be a gap in the law. She asked whether requiring disclosures from referendums and recall initiatives was a common practice in other states. MS. KOENEMAN offered to follow up with information on the requirements in other states. REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked why the proposed legislation did not have an immediate effective date. REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN opined that changing the reporting requirements in the middle of an effort to recall the governor could create a political environment in which the bill may not advance. She noted that she would not be opposed to any current recall campaign sharing its financial information by choice. She emphasized her desire for a clean transition and shared her hope that current recalls would not be impacted by this, as that could create a barrier for the proposed legislation. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out that any changes in commercial fishing regulations were scheduled for the "nadir" of the offseason, indicating that this could be similar. 4:13:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE questioned why the bill excluded municipal referendums. MS. KOENEMAN pointed out that there were many different reporting requirements for municipalities, noting that the proposed legislation focused on state elections. Nonetheless, she offered to look into the municipal code. REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN added that she was open to considering how the addition of municipal or borough requirements for local recalls would impact the bill. 4:14:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how long Alaskan have had the right to recall their public officials. MS. KOENEMAN deferred the question to Ms. Hebdon. 4:15:25 PM HEATHER HEBDON, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission, said she was unsure. MS. KOENEMAN believed the requested information was in the Alaska Constitution. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how many recall efforts had been successful. REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN share her understanding that there had never been a successful recall campaign at the state level. Nonetheless, she believed that with the increased occurrence of recall efforts during elections, financial reporting requirements should be as transparent as possible. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS concurred that there had been very few, if any, successful recall elections in state history. As a supporter of the bill, he expressed concern that recall campaigns were not required to disclose their financials, which he characterized as a "black box of a campaign apparatus" regardless of whether the recall came to fruition. He pointed out that all the money was unaccounted for and being used for political communication. He reiterated that even if the recalls never resulted in an election, there was still a massive transparency problem, which the proposed legislation would solve. 4:18:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN agreed that there had never been a successful recall effort. He expressed concern that if the hurdles to successfully recalling an elected official were such that it had never been accomplished, it could appear [controversial] if legislators were to add to the administrative and regulatory burden. REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN maintained that the proposed legislation would provide the public with a transparent procedure for financial contributions. She said the recall process itself could be considered in a different bill, but the proposed legislation before the committee was solely about financial reporting requirements. She believed that the public had the right to know who funded the organizations both supporting and opposing a recall referendum. She pointed out that the same rules applied to ballot initiatives. She stressed the importance of providing a greater level of transparency. 4:20:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked at what point would the right to recall be effectually regulated out of existence. He questioned whether there were too many regulations and whether "the financial expense were too high to exercise this right." REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN contended that the bill did not pertain to that. She acknowledged that an elected official had never been successfully recalled; however, under the current reporting requirements, there were many unanswered questions about the funding on either side, she said. She asserted that it was not her intention to change the outcome of a recall election with the proposed legislation. She added that her goal was to ensure that Alaskans knew who was behind the funding, which was not possible under current law. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out that many elected officials who were subject to a recall campaign might have resigned before suffering the public shame of being evicted from office, which could be a reason for the lack of "positive proof points." That said, he believed that was a distinct and separate issue from the question of financial transparency. He added that if Representative Eastman wished to pursue legislation that revisited the thresholds for recalling an elected official, it would be guaranteed a hearing in this committee. 4:23:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE questioned how the recall process would be altered if this bill were to pass. MS. HEBDON stated that the major change would be the time of reporting. Currently, reporting was not required during the signature gathering phase, she said. She remarked: Generally, because of the definitions of contribution and expenditure - because it does not currently include money raised and spent in support or opposition to a recall or referendum during that signature gathering phase, it's not reportable activity. It's only reportable once it makes the ballot and becomes a ballot question. So, in essence, it would be a timing thing - they would be reporting money in and money out as soon as they began the signature gathering phase. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for verification that the bill did not include additional [requirements]; however, it would implement an earlier timeframe for reporting. MS. HEBDON confirmed. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether there were fees associated with an earlier reporting timeframe. MS. HEBDON replied that there were no fees associated with APOC reporting. She added that she was unfamiliar with the Division of Elections and whether there would be fee associated with filing an application for recall or referendum. MS. KOENEMAN, per the Division of Elections, reported that referendums and initiatives required a deposit of $100 upon the initial filing, which would not change if this bill were to pass. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his belief that legislators, as candidates, should hold themselves to the same standards that they expect of others, indicating that the legislature often espoused user fee mechanisms to other groups in Alaska despite APOC itself lacking a user fee mechanism. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE inquired about the timeline for that initial deposit of $100 [to the Division of Elections] and how that differed from the reporting timeline. REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN understood that the $100 fee was deposited with the initial application. She explained that the proposed legislation would only change the timeline for reporting financial contributions, such that it would coincide with signature gathering. 4:28:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what steps were involved in the collection of signatures and whether there were associated fees. 4:28:27 PM MS. KOENEMAN relayed that for recall petitions, the application could not be submitted within the first 120 days of the term of office. After 120 days, the application, which included a name, office, and three sponsors to serve as the recall committee, was filed with the Division of Elections. Further, she said that 10 percent of individuals who voted in the preceding general election of the official sought to be recalled were required, 100 of whom would serve as sponsors. Afterwards, the division director certified the recall or notified the recall committee on grounds for refusal. Once certified, the director prepared the petition booklets for circulation throughout the state or House/Senate district. She added that recall campaigns were allowed 180 days to gather the signatures of qualified voters. After the signatures were collected, the division verified the signers of the petition booklets and upon review, notified them of proper or improper filing within 30 days. At that point, under current law, the APOC reporting would initiate with the following requirements: "the first report shall report the contribution or contributions on a form prescribed by the commission no later than 30 days after the contribution that requires them to report is made." She offered to submit the aforementioned information to the chair for distribution. 4:32:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that additional resources be provided for recalls and referendums, as regulations on those efforts were increasing. Further, he characterized [recalls] as an "unfair fight." REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN contended that it was unfair to represent the proposed legislation as intending to "increase regulations." She clarified that the bill would provide more transparency by changing the timeline for existing regulations. 4:33:59 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 157 was held over. 4:34:27 PM The committee took a brief at-ease.