ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 10, 2022
3:12 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Matt Claman, Vice Chair
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Andi Story
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative James Kaufman
Representative David Eastman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 245
"An Act relating to political contribution limits; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 234
"An Act relating to political contributions; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 251
"An Act relating to the Board of Trustees of the Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation; and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 245
SHORT TITLE: POLITICAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOSEPHSON
01/18/22 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/22
01/18/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/22 (H) STA
02/01/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/01/22 (H) Heard & Held
02/01/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/10/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 234
SHORT TITLE: POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SCHRAGE
01/18/22 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/22
01/18/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/22 (H) STA
02/01/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/01/22 (H) Heard & Held
02/01/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/10/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided introductory remarks, as the prime
sponsor of HB 245.
MAX KOHN, Staff
Representative Andy Josephson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
245, on behalf of Representative Josephson, prime sponsor.
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Legislative Counsel
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
245.
MORGAN GRIFFIN, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
245.
TOM LUCAS, Campaign Disclosure Coordinator
Alaska Public Offices Commission
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
245.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
234, as the prime sponsor.
ERIK GUNDERSON, Staff
Representative Calvin Schrage
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
234, on behalf of Representative Schrage, prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:12:42 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:12 p.m.
Representatives Vance, Kaufman, Eastman, Story, and Kreiss-
Tomkins were present at the call to order. Representatives
Claman and Tarr arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 245-POLITICAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
3:15:56 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 245, "An Act relating to political
contribution limits; and providing for an effective date."
3:16:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, provided some historical context on HB 245. He
reminded the committee that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
found Alaskas contribution limits to be too low, adding that
the main concern was the lack of indexing. He explained that
the proposed legislation includes indexing for inflation every
five years; further, that HB 245 proposes a limit of $700 for
House races, $1,000 for Senate races, and $1,500 for statewide
races. He reported that 25 other states utilize graduated
limits, 14 states utilize one limit, and 10 states are without
any limits, indicating that the practice of instituting
graduated limits is a typical concept. He relayed that for a
candidate to communicate with all 18,000 citizens in a House
district via a piece of campaign literature, it costs roughly
$4,000; accordingly, it costs $8,000 to communicate with [all
36,000] citizens in a Senate District. Therefore, he reasoned
that implementing a graduated limit would make sense. He
referenced Randall v. Sorrell and suggested that HB 245 would
check all five of the tests applied by the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals. He noted that Alaskas current laws only check
several of the tests. In conclusion, he added that the proposed
legislation speaks to the out-of-state issue, which has been a
historic concern in Alaska.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited questions from committee members.
3:20:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the goal was to institute a
limit low enough to appease the court or whether $700 was
selected for a different reason.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON explained that Alaskans had expressed a
desire for a limit of $500; however, the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals opposed that limit without prescribing a favorable
option. He noted that the courts tend to offer guidance and
insist on indexing. Consequently, he said, a limit of $700 was
arrived at by indexing $500 for inflation. Further, he
acknowledged that theres an existing philosophy that campaign
limits are valuable tools to avoid quid-pro-quo corruption. He
pointed out, via a diagram [included in the committee packet],
that only 10 states dispense with campaign limits entirely.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the five-year reset in
terms of inflation rate. He asked how the new amount would be
announced, as it would appear to fall in the middle of an
election cycle. He questioned whether donations that had
already been received for that election cycle would apply
retroactively.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON deferred to Mr. Kohn.
3:22:49 PM
MAX KOHN, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska State
Legislature, explained the proposed indexing cycle. He stated
that the cycle would start in the first quarter of calendar year
2023, thus following the 2022 elections and presumably well
before most campaigning starts for the 2024 elections. The next
cycle would start 5 years after that in January 2028. He
suggested that if it were the will of the committee to change
the timing to avoid disrupting campaigns, a cycle of either four
or six years would remain within the scope of the bill.
3:23:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE directed attention to Section 6 and
inquired about nonresident contributions. She believed that if
there is concern about limiting outside interest, 50 percent of
the total contributions is much more generous than the prior
graduated approach. She expressed her support for utilizing
percentages; however, she asked how 50 percent was arrived at.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON conceded that 50 percent is not
grounded in mathematics in the same way the $700 limit is. He
concluded that after reading all the literature on the decisions
made by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court,
no more than 50 percent seemed reasonable.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked how the candidates, as well as the
Alaska Public Office Commission (APOC), would implement that
while campaign contributions come in.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he was open to guidance in terms
of amendments to improve the bill. He acknowledged that it
would be something that a candidate would have to monitor.
3:27:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN opined that the bill seemed to double
down on the inherent challenges of running for election in a
district with a smaller population.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he didnt understand the question.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN remarked, If its reasonable to scale
the dollar value down for the seat since the population is
already scaled down and you have fixed costs. So, lets just
say youre going to buy a radio commercial [that] would
overlap, and it cost what it cost in that marketplace, so the
House candidate is already at a numerical disadvantage because
of the population that might be interested in donating to the
race, whereas the Senate has double that population to draw
from. And if you have a dollar value reduction for that
position, as well as the smaller population, it seems like it's
challenging that process a little bit.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON deferred to Mr. Kohn.
MR. KOHN noted that the courts are often interested in whether a
challenger has a fair chance against an incumbent. He said it
might be fair to compare two candidates within a House race;
however, comparisons between a House and a Senate race have not
been drawn.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN clarified that he wasn't comparing a
House and Senate race in terms of the challenge. He
reiterated his assertion that there are certain barriers to
entry to run for office. He stated:
If you have a sample population thats smaller and you
have a dollar value limit thats lower, but you have
certain pieces of the process that cost what they cost
no matter if youre campaigning to a House or a Senate
district, [such as] a radio commercial it just seems
like its kind of doubling down on and making it that
much more challenging for that race by limiting it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON pointed out that Representative Kaufman
had suggested that donations come from within the district. He
contended that donations generally come from outside a
candidates district. He said he was not fully understanding
the question.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN expressed his hope that a significant
portion of donations come from within the district. He
maintained his belief that smaller districts face larger
challenges.
3:33:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he applauded the sponsors effort to
honor the peoples expressed will in terms of campaign limits;
however, he pointed out that when those votes were cast, the
circumstances were much different than they are today. He
referenced Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and
Ballot Measure 2, opining that both would likely change how
people vote on the issue today. He asked whether the changing
nature of expenses going into a post [Proposal 2] election had
been modeled and whether the bill sponsor had considered how
much more those races might cost. He anticipated that general
election costs would be higher.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he had not performed any modeling
and would not know how to model that scenario.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked, How should we be looking at the
fact that you have an opportunity for almost unlimited money and
yet, were having a relatively small limit of $700?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON pointed out that using the benefits of
Citizens United and PAC [political action committee]
contributions, an individual could generously give to those
entities. He emphasized that the prohibition is on them
coordinating with the candidate. He reiterated that both the
th
Supreme Court and the 9 Circuit have expressed that campaign
contribution limits are important to prevent quid-pro-quo
corruption.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the proposed limit would
actually solve any potential harm in the relationship between a
donor and a candidate.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said, with great respect, I cant make
the world perfect Im trying to make it better. He noted
that the courts have had similar conversations, to which they
said Katy bar the door when it comes to a PAC because of the
First Amendment interest; however, direct contributions are okay
to protect democracy. He indicated that the intent is to
control the amount of money coming in, as well as to emphasize
that $20 from an individual is meaningful too.
3:41:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN interpreted the [9th Circuit Court of
Appeals] opinion to indicate that in terms of campaign
contributions, First Amendment rights could be restricted on the
basis of quid-pro-quo corruption or its appearance. He
expressed his concern with creating different [graduated] limits
for House versus Senate candidates because from a contributors
standpoint, his/her speech, in terms of donations to a House
candidate, should not be restricted any differently than his/her
donations to a Senate candidate or vice versa. He reiterated
that there must be findings or the appearance of corruption to
limit free speech, which was why he struggled with the
[graduated] limits.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON pointed out that, per the NCSL, 20
states use graduated limits. He said it was a policy call
designed to create allowances for a Senate race, which in
Alaska, has 36,000 people rather than 18,000; further, it was
designed to tamp down on the system being overwhelmed by cash.
He explained that the graduated system was being proposed to
respect the 9th Circuits decision that $500 was too low, in
part, because it wasnt graduated.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN maintained that [the bills] restriction
of individual rights to speech by how much money contributors
are allowed to spend lacks justification. He reiterated his
concern about the disparity between House, Senate, and governor
races. He opined that there was no connection to corruption to
justify limiting campaign contributions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON emphasized that the courts have said
that the seat at play matters; further, the courts expressed
concern with direct contributions impacting races because of the
threat of corruption.
3:48:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed additional concern with the per-
year limits, as opposed to per election. He explained that his
concern stems from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion,
which discussed factors to consider, such as the advantages of
incumbency. He opined that the annual limits would give a
substantial advantage to incumbents because traditionally,
challengers didnt sign up for elections until 30 days before
the filing deadline, putting them in a one-year campaign fund
raising cycle. He also pointed out that there is an 18-month
window on contributions under the APOC law, which applies to
municipal elections. He continued to explain that because the
Anchorage municipal election is in April, the organized
incumbent, regardless of the limits, could triple dip, as
he/she could raise money in the last few months of 2020, for
example, raise money in all of 2021, and raise money in the four
months before the election in 2022, creating a huge advantage
over any challenger. He said if the intent was to give
challengers a shot, there seems to be a fundamental flaw in
annual limits. He opined that implementing campaign limits in
every election would level the playing field and give
challengers a decent shot.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he decided to stay with the annual
limits because thats what Alaska does; additionally, because
th
the 9 Circuit had no issue with it. He reasoned that the
annual limits seemed to be what Alaska was comfortable with.
3:53:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY observed that most House candidates are
running for the first time. She opined that House races should
have lower limits than Senate races. She expressed her hope
that running for office would feel accessible and approachable
to all.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Bullard to share Legislative
Legal Services perspective on out-of-state contribution limits.
3:56:05 PM
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, spoke to the Thompson v.
th
Hebdon decision by the 9 Circuit Court of Appeals. He
indicated that the court found Alaskas aggregate limits to be a
poor fit for addressing quid-pro-quo corruption.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Griffin whether the Department of
Law (DOL) had a perspective on Thompson v. Hebdon and the
relative constitutionality of out-of-state contribution limits.
3:57:41 PM
MORGAN GRIFFIN, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
offered to follow up with the requested information.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether DOL had a perspective on what
may withstand judicial review.
MS. GRIFFIN clarified that her role is council for APOC staff;
therefore, as a more neutral body, she typically provides the
commission advice based on the law, as opposed to what DOL
wants. She understood that in terms of out-of-state
contribution, the commission had not been enforcing the statute.
She deferred to Mr. Lucas.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS requested that she follow up with a
perspective from DOL on this general issue.
4:00:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN referenced the document from the National
Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) [included in the
committee packet] pertaining to contribution limits across the
United States. He observed that the states were categorized by
those with graduated limits, those with one limit for all
candidates, and those with no limit, and asked whether there was
existing evidence that one was more corrupt than the others.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON defined "dicta" as part of an opinion
but not the holding of the opinion, adding that there was
broad discussion on that topic. He noted that Rhode Island had
its problems with corruption, as well as Louisiana; however,
that did not provide a statistical sample.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN provided a scenario that considered two
voters: one who was elderly and disabled and had the ability to
contribute to a campaign financially but not physically; the
second voter was more physically able but lacked financial
assets to donate. He asked whether a financial limit would have
a greater imposition on the disabled voter relative to the
younger voter who could offer more dollar value in physical
efforts, thereby creating an unfairness.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said typically, when he thought about
disabled or elderly voters, he thought about voting access,
which related to other bills but not HB 245. He referenced
historical cases, such as Randall v. Sorrell and Thompson,
noting that although the opinions had discussed the in-kind
value of volunteering, it was not the main heart of the
decision. He opined that the question doesnt factor into the
proposed legislation at all.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asserted that his question pertained to
the fundamental aspect of [volunteer work] being a [type of]
contribution with a financial equivalence.
4:04:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that a wealthy candidate had a
distinct advantage, which grew as the individual contribution
limit decreased. Alternatively, a candidate with less money
must reach out to more people. He asked whether the bill
sponsor had considered that disparity.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he had not considered that
disparity. He emphasized that much like the 40 states with
contribution limits, he was a believer in those limits. He
acknowledged that it was an advantage for the affluent; however,
they sometimes pay a political price for that advantage.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN guessed that many of the 40 states with
contribution limits do not have the same mechanism as Alaska
law, which allows a candidate to file for one office, and then
decide to switch to a different office and put all or most of
the money into a future campaign account, and then put it into
that new campaign and then go back to the same donors that gave
them previously and ask them to donate again to the new campaign
in the same election cycle. He surmised that the low limits
[in the proposed legislation] would encourage people to do
things like that
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he would have to hear the question
a second time. Nonetheless, he addressed the reference to
future campaign accounts, which is a term of art in Alaska,
adding that they are very restrictive. He understood that in
the scenario put forward by Representative Eastman, the moment a
candidate declared that he/she was running for House, they would
be stuck and could not carry it to a Senate race; further, if
the candidate had yet to declare and went back to a donor to ask
for another donation, the donor would have the discretion to say
no. For those reasons, he said he wasnt sure of the question.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN acknowledged that there would be no
benefit of running for House and then running for some other
office; however, there would be a benefit to running for
governor, which had a much higher threshold for future campaign
accounts, and then running for Senate. He indicated that this
method would be a way to gain the system and avoid the $700
limit. He noted that he was not recommending it, but there was
a greater incentive to go that path with the institution of
lower limits.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he had no experience with that
because Alaska had never instituted a graduated system. He
reiterated his understanding that once an individual was to
declare for governor, the funds he/she raised would be for that
race. He deferred to Mr. Lucas.
4:10:06 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS restated question, asking whether funds
raised for a particular office must be confined to candidacy for
that office.
TOM LUCAS, Campaign Disclosure Coordinator, Alaska Public
Offices Commission, said the scenario proposed by Representative
Eastman is possible. He explained that someone could file for
governor, close out the race and put $50,000 into a future
campaign account, and then file for Senate.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN clarified that the incentive would be the
ability to collect three maximum contributions from the same
donor, thus raising $2,100 as opposed to $700. He wondered
whether the low limit would create an incentive to utilize that
method.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON suggested that Representative Eastman
offer an amendment. He remarked, I think that the donor would
say, Candidate, you have a problem with indecision, and Im
frustrated with you, and Im done with you.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Lucas whether anything prevented
that scenario from occurring at present or prior to Thompson v.
Hebdon.
MR. LUCAS said there was nothing to precluding that scenario in
statute.
4:13:55 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether it had ever occurred during
Mr. Lucass tenure at APOC.
MR. LUCAS reported that people had closed out their campaigns
and put money into a future campaign account for the next one.
He could not recall it occurring in a race for governor.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS surmised that this was a loophole in the
future campaign account (FCA) statutes that hadnt been
exploited. He believed it could merit an amendment. He noted
that voters might not appreciate such a blatantly cynical
maneuver, which might be further disincentive.
4:15:24 PM
MR. KOHN pointed out that there were graduating limits in Alaska
before Thompson v. Hebdon in the nonaggregate limits, so
theoretically, the loophole may have already existed.
MR. LUCAS confirmed that there was a graduated amount for the
aggregate limit in statute before it was struck down.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 245 was held over.
HB 234-POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
4:17:00 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 234, "An Act relating to political
contributions; and providing for an effective date." [Before
the committee was the proposed CS, Version I, adopted as the
working draft on 2/1/22.]
4:17:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor,
said his intention was to keep his introductory remarks short
given the robust conversation on the prior bill. He invited
questions from committee members.
4:17:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recalled that Representative Schrage had
removed a portion of the proposed legislation based on the
aggregate limits. He asked whether the sponsor was interested
in reinserting that section based on the attorneys comments on
aggregate limits during the discussion on HB 245.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE sought to clarify whether Representative
Eastman was referring to out-of-state contribution limits.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN confirmed that he was referring to the
aggregate out-of-state limits.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE deferred to Mr. Gunderson.
4:19:19 PM
ERIK GUNDERSON, Staff, Representative Calvin Schrage, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Schrage, prime
sponsor, clarified that the original bill removed existing
statutory language that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck
down as unconstitutional in the Thompson v. Hebdon decision. He
noted that Version I left that language in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN wondered whether the language that the
court found unconstitutional should be left in statute. He
understood that the court was against it because it was not
effective at limiting quid-pro-quo corruption.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said his intent is to leave that language
in statute; however, he shared his understanding that the
language would be unenforceable. He added that he does not
intend to rectify the out-of-state limit being struck down by
the court. He shared his interpretation from the guidance
provided by the court that there was no workable out-of-state
limit, which was why it was not addressed in the bill.
4:21:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that the annual limits were
favorable to incumbents whereas campaign limits were beneficial
for challengers. He asked for the bill sponsors thoughts on
campaign limits versus annual limits.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said the courts had indicated that
increasing contribution limits diminished the incumbents
advantage in fundraising for a campaign. He believed that
increasing limits to a higher threshold would minimize the
challenge of running a challenger campaign. Additionally, he
said he would be open to an amendment that would change the
annual limit to a campaign limit based on the election cycle.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed out that the federal limit for
both U.S. House and Senate was $2,900 per election; however, the
primary and the general were considered two different elections;
therefore, the limit was essentially $5,800. Regarding the
donors First Amendment right to express his/her opinion through
contributions, he opined that it was difficult to justify
limiting that expression of speech less for a state House or
Senate race compared to a U.S. House and Senate race. He
questioned why the federal limits were not being tracked.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE reiterated that the voters had expressed
concern and a desire to see lower limits. He said in crafting
the bill, he recognized the implications of Citizens United. He
summarized that the only legitimate reason to restrict free
speech in the ability to advocate for campaigns through
donations, was to eliminate or avoid the appearance or actuality
of quid-pro-quo contributions or actions. He acknowledged that
the federal limits provided more ceiling and limited free speech
less; however, he said HB 234 attempted to strike a balance
between the citizens desire to see a lower limit and a
constitutionally valid limit.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about a potential amendment to
close the FCA loopholes, as referenced by Representative
Eastman.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE offered to follow up with the
information.
4:26:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN acknowledged that the loophole may
technically exist, but in reality, it didnt arise because it
would take a lot of organization to fundraise, so the notion of
gaining the system by utilizing FCA seemed incredibly unlikely.
He reasoned that the legislature could take time to close the
loophole; however, it was a loophole that was not being utilized
by anyone. He believed that absent any evidence that it had
been exploited, the committee should focus on the matters at
hand, as opposed to hypotheticals.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said that was his initial impression as
well. He added that since then, it had been brought to his
attention that perhaps it has been exploited.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether it had been exploited with
any frequency.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said, Apparently.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE confirmed that it was an existing
loophole that was not addressed in HB 234. He suggested that
keeping contributions uniform through the different levels of
races throughout Alaska would not expand that loophole or offer
incentive to take advantage of it.
4:27:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said she liked the idea of a unified
contribution amount, which would be simpler from the publics
perspective. She emphasized the importance of public
engagement, adding that engagement should be prioritized over a
dollar amount. She asked whether the bill sponsor had
considered the idea of allowing independent expenditures to have
"a wide open of outside influence into them in their impact on
races.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE stated that he had not taken an extensive
look at independent expenditure groups because through Citizens
United, the doors have been opened for unlimited money to go to
independent expenditure groups. Further, he said [the courts]
made it very clear that the state is not in a position to limit
contributions to independent expenditure groups. He conveyed
that he personally took issue with the ramifications of Citizens
United.
4:29:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE clarified that her concern was not to limit
the use of independent expenditure groups. She acknowledged
that the goal was to have Alaskans influencing Alaskans;
nonetheless, she believed that a small degree of outside
influence had its value. She questioned whether outside
influence in the form of contributions to independent
expenditure groups could be limited by the state and whether
Representative Schrage was interested in addressing that in the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE reiterated that the only legitimate
reason to limit free speech was to avoid the appearance or
actuality of corruption. He noted that there was no proof that
out-of-state donations have any more impact on a candidates
decisions or actions than in-state donations, which was why an
out-of-state contribution limit had not been reimplemented in
Alaska.
4:31:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the bill sponsors
thoughts on graduated limits and whether the threshold for
Senate should be higher than the threshold for House.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said it was a challenging question
because it would make rational sense to implement a higher
contribution limit for Senate races; alternatively, more voters
may be inclined to participate in the election and make a
contribution [with a lower limit]. Further, he pondered how a
donation of $1,000 to a House race would be more or less
corrupting than a $1,000 donation to a Senate race. For that
reason, he believed in a uniform contribution limit across
races.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referenced the 10 states with no
contribution limit and proposed a comparative scenario that
considered two candidates: the first was wealthy and had the
ability to finance a campaign; the second was in a lower-income
bracket, which put them at a financial disadvantage, but he/she
had better credentials and was more aligned with the voters in
the district. He asked Representative Schrage to speak on that
consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said it was a valid concern; however,
another valid concern is that a large contribution could entice
that politician into a quid-pro-quo exchange. He added that he
could only speculate on how Alaskans feel about an unlimited cap
on donations. He reiterated that on numerous occasions,
Alaskans had expressed a high degree of concern about corruption
and a very strong desire to have a low contribution limit.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recalled that the Supreme Court had noted
several factors unique to Alaska, such as the size of the
legislature. He asked whether Representative Schrage had
considered increasing the number of legislators to appease the
court.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE reiterated that his intent was to keep
the bill narrow in scope while achieving the objective of
restoring contribution limits.
4:37:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN recalled the scenario he posed previously
regarding two different volunteers: one who was disabled but
wealthy, and another who was able-bodied but unable to
contribute financially. When considering limits, he asked
whether there would be equity between the two voters in their
ability to support a candidate.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said he hadn't thought about that. He
offered to follow up after giving it more thought.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS added, What if one volunteer is smarter
than the other one? Is the dumb volunteer an inequitable
contribution to the campaign than the smarter one? He
indicated that theres a lot of variations on that theme.
4:39:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that if an individual gets
elected after raising $50,000 from friends and neighbors and
$250,000 from an independent expenditure in one industry, it
could create a much higher risk of corruption. He questioned
how to deal with that in light of Citizens United.
MR. GUNDERSON remarked that per the courts guidance, individual
donations to a candidate were less influential compared to an
individuals donation to an independent expenditure group.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE clarified his aide's comment, stating
that if an individual made a contribution to an independent
expenditure group and then the independent expenditure group
spent funds on that race, the risk of quid-pro-quo engagement is
diminished substantially.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN believed that from the publics
perspective, that analysis would be suspect. He believed that
on some level, lower campaign limits for candidates would raise
the potential for independent expenditures. He opined that
there was a tension between the two.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE was unsure what the public would think on
the heels of Citizens United. He stated that the proposed
legislation aimed to address the uncertainty around contribution
limits today, adding that there was a certain level of immediacy
that the bill attempted to capture. He conveyed his interest in
keeping the scope of HB 234 narrow while still addressing core
concerns to ensure that the public could have confidence in the
upcoming elections.
4:44:59 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 234 was held over.
4:47:00 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:47
p.m.