ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE  HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE  April 10, 2025 3:19 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Ashley Carrick, Chair Representative Andi Story, Vice Chair Representative Rebecca Himschoot Representative Ky Holland Representative Sarah Vance Representative Kevin McCabe Representative Elexie Moore MEMBERS ABSENT  All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR  HOUSE BILL NO. 104 "An Act creating and relating to the address confidentiality program; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD & HELD HOUSE BILL NO. 139 "An Act relating to renting the governor's mansion; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD & HELD HOUSE BILL NO. 16 "An Act amending campaign contribution limits for state and local office; directing the Alaska Public Offices Commission to adjust campaign contribution limits for state and local office once each decade beginning in 2031; and relating to campaign contribution reporting requirements." - MOVED CSHB 16(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION  BILL: HB 104 SHORT TITLE: ADDRESS CONFIDENTIALITY PROGRAM SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MEARS 02/14/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 02/14/25 (H) STA, FIN 03/11/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120 03/11/25 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard 03/25/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120 03/25/25 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard 03/27/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120 03/27/25 (H) 04/08/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120 04/08/25 (H) Heard & Held 04/08/25 (H) MINUTE(STA) 04/10/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120 BILL: HB 139 SHORT TITLE: RENT GOVERNORS MANSION SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) STAPP 03/17/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 03/17/25 (H) STA, FIN 04/08/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120 04/08/25 (H) Heard & Held 04/08/25 (H) MINUTE(STA) 04/10/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120 BILL: HB 16 SHORT TITLE: CAMPAIGN FINANCE, CONTRIBUTION LIMITS SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SCHRAGE 01/22/25 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/10/25 01/22/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 01/22/25 (H) STA, FIN 03/27/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120 03/27/25 (H) Heard & Held 03/27/25 (H) MINUTE(STA) 03/29/25 (H) STA AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120 03/29/25 (H) Heard & Held 03/29/25 (H) MINUTE(STA) 04/10/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120 WITNESS REGISTER LAUREE MORTON, Deputy Director Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 104. MANDY COLE, Executive Director AWARE Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 104. DEREK BOS, Chief of Police City and Borough of Juneau Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 104. AMANDA NDEMO, Staff, Representative Schrage Alaska State Legislature Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB 16 on behalf of Representative Schrage, prime sponsor. HEATHER HEBDON, Executive Director Alaska Public Offices Commission Anchorage, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB 16. ALPHEUS BULLARD, Legislative Counsel Legislative Legal Services Legislative Affairs Agency Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB 16. REPRESENTATIVE CALVIN SCHRAGE Alaska State Legislature Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, made comment during the hearing on HB 16. BOB BALLINGER, Staff Representative Sarah Vance Alaska State Legislature Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during consideration of amendments to HB 16. ACTION NARRATIVE 3:19:53 PM CHAIR ASHLEY CARRICK called the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:19 p.m. Representatives McCabe, Vance, Holland, Himschoot, Story, and Carrick were present at the call to order. Representative Moore arrived as the meeting was in progress. HB 104-ADDRESS CONFIDENTIALITY PROGRAM  3:20:28 PM CHAIR CARRICK announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 104, "An Act creating and relating to the address confidentiality program; and providing for an effective date." 3:21:07 PM CHAIR CARRICK opened public testimony on HB 104. 3:21:23 PM LAUREE MORTON, Deputy Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, testified in support of HB 104. She said address confidentiality programs are designed to safeguard wellbeing of individuals from preventing exposure; they act as a shield for victims. Violence escalates when violent offenders feel they are losing control, especially when a victim is trying to leave. The person will often stalk the victim searching public records such as voter registration and driver's license rolls. This bill allows the department to set a standard in addition to protective orders when making enrollment decisions when lethality is high and providing information through the protective order is considered placing the victim at risk. In these situations, it will be best to allow the victim to enroll in the Address Confidentiality Program. She stated that she feels the program will be used occasionally when the circumstances are extreme and the threat is real. She described stalking tactics and said most victims of homicides were stalked, and she believes HB 104 will save lives. 3:24:37 PM MANDY COLE, Executive Director, AWARE, testified in support of HB 104. She said AWARE has been providing services for over 40 years and this is her twentieth year with the organization. She said there are many ways to find a person including social media. She shared a few experiences that would benefit from having a confidential address. This prevents the abuser from knowing a physical address. 3:27:50 PM DEREK BOS, Chief of Police, City and Borough of Juneau, testified in support of HB 104. As a police officer, he has witnessed firsthand the trauma with victims exacerbated with continued exposure to abusers. The Address Protection Program would prevent them from future harassment. He shared that law enforcement officers are often harassed and stalked. From a law enforcement perspective, the bill would be pivotal for both sexual abuse and domestic violence victims and law enforcement officers. 3:30:28 PM CHAIR CARRICK, after ascertaining there was no one else who wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 104. CHAIR CARRICK announced that HB 104 was held over. HB 139-RENT GOVERNORS MANSION  3:30:54 PM CHAIR CARRICK announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 139, "An Act relating to renting the governor's mansion; and providing for an effective date." 3:31:06 PM CHAIR CARRICK opened public testimony on HB 139. After ascertaining there was no one who wished to testify, she closed public testimony. CHAIR CARRICK announced that HB 139 was held over. HB 16-CAMPAIGN FINANCE, CONTRIBUTION LIMITS  3:31:46 PM CHAIR CARRICK announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 16, "An Act amending campaign contribution limits for state and local office; directing the Alaska Public Offices Commission to adjust campaign contribution limits for state and local office once each decade beginning in 2031; and relating to campaign contribution reporting requirements." CHAIR CARRICK noted those available to respond to questions and announced the committee would entertain amendments. She noted that the [prenumbered] amendments would be taken out of order. 3:33:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND moved to adopt Amendment 8 to HB 16, labeled 34-LS0217\A.15, Bullard, 4/5/25, which read: Page 1, line 3: Delete "and" Page 1, line 4, following "requirements": Insert "; and providing for an effective date" Page 3, lines 21 - 22: Delete all material and insert: "APPLICABILITY. This Act applies to all contributions made during or after the 2026 general election cycle. * Sec. 10. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read: RETROACTIVITY. If this Act takes effect after May 3, 2025, this Act is retroactive to May 3, 2025.  * Sec. 11. This Act takes effect May 3, 2025." 3:33:39 PM CHAIR CARRICK objected for purpose of discussion. 3:33:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND said Amendment 8 was offered to clarify the effective date. The amendment clarifies how the bill would be interpreted. 3:34:21 PM The committee took a brief at-ease at 3:34 p.m. 3:34:26 PM CHAIR CARRICK noted that a conceptual amendment had been distributed to committee members. 3:35:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND [moved to adopt] Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 8, on page 1 [as numbered on Amendment 8] to delete language on lines 7 - 15; and on page 3 [as numbered on Amendment 8], following line 22, to insert Section 10: "This act takes effect immediately under AS 01.10.070(c)." 3:35:44 PM The committee took an at-ease from 3:35 p.m. to 3:36 p.m. 3:36:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND, in response to Representative McCabe, restated Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 8. CHAIR CARRICK objected. 3:37:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked how Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 8 would impact contributions made for people who are already campaigning. REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND explained that Amendment 8 makes it retroactive to May 3, which he indicated would be unconstitutional and impair freedom of speech. The intent of the conceptual amendment is to align the effective date with the effective date of the bill so as not to be restrictive. He said the first cycle would have a buffer before the bill becomes effective. He is trying to make sure the bill is clear and effective. 3:39:42 PM AMANDA NDEMO, Staff, Representative Calvin Schrage, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Schrage, prime sponsor of HB 16, stated that there were concerns about a retroactive date; the intent now is to make the effective date upon passing the bill. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said her concern is how the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) will communicate this with people who are campaigning right away when election cycle begins. She questioned how APOC would communicate for people to get up to speed on the limits of campaigning activity. MS. NDEMO asked if Heather Hebdon could address this question. 3:41:01 PM HEATHER HEBDON, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), responded that if there are changes in the middle of an election cycle, APOC would monitor campaigns as they are filing their letter of intent. The commission would be notifying campaigns of the effective date. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said if the campaign cycle is May, then she is thinking about practical implications of the first report. She again questioned how this law would be applied to those just trying to figure out what the law is. She wants to ensure what the legislature enacts is practical. MS. NDEMO said the intent is to avoid complication. She said she hopes for it to pass in July; APOC will wait for this to continue in the next election cycle. 3:43:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND said pointed to page 3, line 21, for clarification of the effective date. That was his concern and why he offered the Amendment 8. A retroactive date had more problems than solutions. He stated that line 21-22 provides clarity for APOC. The conceptual amendment clarifies that it would be effective immediately. 3:45:02 PM CHAIR CARRICK removed her objection. There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 8 was adopted. 3:45:26 PM CHAIR CARRICK removed her objection to Amendment 8, as amended. There being no further objection, Amendment 8, as amended, was adopted. 3:45:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 16, as amended, labeled 34-LS0217\A.3, Bullard, 4/1/25, which read: Page 1, line 3: Delete "and" Page 1, line 4, following "requirements": Insert "; and limiting contributions and  independent expenditures from nonresident persons that  are intended to influence the outcome of a ballot  proposition election" Page 1, following line 11: Insert a new bill section to read:  "* Sec. 2. AS 15.13.065(c) is amended to read: (c) Except for reports required by AS 15.13.040 and 15.13.110, [AND EXCEPT FOR] the requirements of AS 15.13.050, 15.13.060, and 15.13.112 - 15.13.114, and the limit in AS 15.13.072(i), the provisions of AS 15.13.010 - 15.13.116 do not apply to limit the authority of a person to make contributions to influence the outcome of a ballot proposition. In this subsection, in addition to its meaning in AS 15.80.010, "proposition" includes (1) an issue placed on a ballot to determine whether (A) a constitutional convention shall be called; (B) a debt shall be contracted; (C) an advisory question shall be approved or rejected; or (D) a municipality shall be incorporated; (2) an initiative proposal application filed with the lieutenant governor under AS 15.45.020." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 3, following line 6: Insert new bill sections to read:  "* Sec. 8. AS 15.13.072 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (i) A group or nongroup entity making independent expenditures for or against a ballot proposition may not solicit or accept more than $500 each year in contributions from an (1) individual who is not a resident of the state at the time the contribution is made; or (2) entity organized under the laws of another state. * Sec. 9. AS 15.13.074 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (j) A person who is not a resident of the state may not contribute more than $500 each year in total to all groups and nongroup entities for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election concerning a ballot proposition. * Sec. 10. AS 15.13.084 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (b) A person who is not a resident of the state may not make independent expenditures of more than $500 each year for or against a ballot proposition." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. CHAIR CARRICK objected for the purpose of discussion. 3:46:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said this amendment limits non-resident contributions to $500 each year. He said this defends Alaska's right to control its own destiny. He said that ballot propositions reflect the will of Alaskans, not nonresidents. It keeps the democratic process to those that live here. He said that nonresidents don't bear consequences. He said limiting their influences to $500 is not about silencing speech but elections are not drowned out by wealthy donors. He stated that it is easier to influence in Alaska. Alaska has more sway over the ballot propositions than many states and doesn't overregulate. He said this would preserve integrity in the elections; non-resident money favors a "pay to play" situation. Alaska's election should serve Alaskans, not outside interest. 3:50:27 PM CHAIR CARRICK said her concern with this amendment was last time that courts struck down nonresident contributions. She remarked that it is tough to make those changes. 3:51:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said that she has the same concerns and asked if any states can do this kind of limitations. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that he was not too sure. He said that this issue was seen in ranked choice voting; outside money was $12 million; opposition was $100,000 to counteract. He said that he is trying to level the playing field and let Alaskans determine destiny. If a ballot measure is put forward, somebody that is outside the state that has an agenda doesn't need to gather signatures, just send money. He said that as Alaskans, the legislature should push back on the courts and say this is what the legislature wants. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said she was concerned about the constitutionality, though she could not agree more with Representative McCabe. She did not want to set Alaska up for lawsuits if this has already been decided. 3:54:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND said that he agrees with comments and intent and wants to see this happen. He said his priority is to get campaign limits passed. He doesn't want this jeopardized. He is not against intent but wants to protect HB 16 and its effectiveness. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that he would rather pass a law that defends Alaska and let the courts "duke it out." He said that without some conservative amendments, it would not pass. He said the Alaska State Legislature is supposed to be a stronger branch than the courts. The legislature doesn't pass laws based off what a legal analyst tells the legislature might happen. The $500 is fair, not a ban. 3:56:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that she has seen many renditions of the bill. She appreciated Representative McCabe bringing this amendment forward. She received a phone call today from constituent asking when Alaska will be able to decide the limits of outside influence, not the courts. If HB 16 were to be challenged, only specific areas may be thrown out. Alaskans need to push the envelope on this issue, and Alaskans want to determine their future. She commented on the exponential rate of attack from outside out Alaska and providing a framework and boundary, and she said she wants the legislature to make a statement and people to not be afraid if it is taken up in a lawsuit. Her constituent questioned at what point Alaskans get to make their own decisions. She is supportive of Amendment 1. Courts should not make laws; lawmakers do. 4:00:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY recommended getting the opinion of Legislative Legal Services and addressing the issue in another bill. She agreed to the concept but wanted to ensure HB 16 passed. CHAIR CARRICK reiterated the question as to whether Amendment 1 would be struck down by the courts if the legislation were passed. She inquired about previous decisions and asked whether it would be possible to strike down a portion of the bill. 4:02:49 PM ALPHEUS BULLARD, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, answered that prohibition or limitations of nonresidents would be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. If the legislature is going to limit political speech, the state needs a compelling reason as speech is a fundamental right. Courts have found that nonresidents are not a source of corruption. He talked about the previous decisions and talked about aggregate limitations. The only rationale for limiting contributions under the Supreme Court is quid pro quo corruption, and nonresidents are not any greater evil than residents. He said Amendment 1 would be considered unconstitutional. 4:06:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked how long ago the Hebden decision was. MR. BULLARD said that it was in 2002. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that Mr. Bullard was saying unequivocally a court would strike it down without taking it to court. He was confused about why they were bowing to the courts, as the courts would use the testimony here. MS. NDEMO said the most recent case was decided in 2021. CHAIR CARRICK said that was what she was referring to earlier. She asked if Mr. Bullard was aware of this later decision. MR. BULLARD said he was aware of this decision. 4:08:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked his question again. MR. BULLARD said that he never knows what the courts would do; however, based on his legal experience this would be struck down. 4:09:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Mr. Bullard if the bill would go into effect and later the court challenge would occur. MR. BULLARD answered that he imagines APOC would get a recommendation not to enforce the statute if it were enacted. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said it seems like it would be law until it is challenged. 4:11:24 PM MS. HEBDON said that was her understanding of it. She noted that there have been instances where APOC has been advised by the Department of Law (DOL) that it should not be enforcing the law. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT summarized that if this were passed, then there is a chance that [APOC] could not enforce it. MS. HEBDON confirmed that is correct. 4:12:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked Ms. Hebdon if she had really meant to say that if a law is passed by the legislature, APOC may not need to uphold it, and the reason is just because DOL says so. MS. HEBDON clarified that there have been instances in the past where provisions of the law might not be upheld. 4:13:41 PM The committee took an at-ease from 4:13 p.m. to 4:19 p.m. 4:19:15 PM CHAIR CARRICK noted that the committee is still in discussion of Amendment 1 to HB 16. She maintained her objection, explaining that while she supports the intent of the amendment, there are too many unanswered questions. 4:20:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that she believes this is a separation of powers issue. Current jurisprudence provides that the legislature must have compelling reason for any limits that it puts on free speech and prove how it leads to corruption. It must be narrowly limited. The most recent ballot measures that passed with less than a 1-percent margin had outside contributions of 92-1. This is a good reason why the legislature should act on limiting nonresident influence on Alaska's elections. She said she understands that there are several cases that make this possibly unconstitutional. She is trying to understand what the lawmaking branch can do and what the legislature feels is appropriate within the boundaries of the law. The courts will look at the legislative record and what the legislature feels warranted this kind of change. 4:22:56 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCabe, Vance, and Moore voted in favor of Amendment 1 to HB 16, as amended. Representatives Himschoot, Holland, Story, and Carrick voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 to HB 16, as amended, failed to be adopted by a vote of 3-4. 4:23:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to adopt Amendment 2 to HB 16, as amended, labeled 34-LS0217\A.2, Bullard, 4/3/25, which read: Page 1, line 1, following "Act": Insert "prohibiting contributions to candidates  from nonresident people in state and local elections;" Page 1, following line 11: Insert a new bill section to read:  "* Sec. 2. AS 15.13.065(a) is amended to read: (a) Only individuals who are residents of the  state and [INDIVIDUALS,] groups, nongroup entities, and political parties that are incorporated under the  laws of the state may make contributions to a candidate. An individual, group, or nongroup entity may make a contribution to a group, to a nongroup entity, or to a political party." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 2, line 2: Delete "," Insert ";  (2) $2,000 each year [,]" Page 2, line 5: Delete "(2)" Insert "(3) [(2)]" Page 2, line 9: Delete "$4,000 each election cycle" Insert "$2,000 each year" Page 2, line 17: Delete "," Insert ";  (2) $2,000 each year [,]" Page 2, line 19: Delete "(2)" Insert "(3)" Page 2, lines 24 - 25: Delete "$4,000 each election cycle [$1,000 PER YEAR]" Insert "$2,000 each [$1,000 PER] year" Page 3, following line 6: Insert a new bill section to read:  "* Sec. 8. AS 15.13.072(a) is amended to read: (a) A candidate or an individual who has filed with the commission the document necessary to permit that individual to incur election-related expenses under AS 15.13.100 may not solicit or accept a contribution from (1) a person not authorized by law to make a contribution; (2) an individual who is not a resident of the state at the time the contribution is made [, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN (e) OF THIS SECTION]; (3) a group organized under the laws of another state, resident in another state, or whose participants are not residents of this state at the time the contribution is made; or (4) a person registered as a lobbyist if the contribution violates AS 15.13.074(g) or AS 24.45.121(a)(8)." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 3, following line 18: Insert a new bill section to read:  "* Sec. 11. AS 15.13.072(e) is repealed." Renumber the following bill section accordingly. CHAIR CARRICK objected for the purpose of discussion. 4:24:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said this is to simplify reporting forms for groups and nongroups receiving less than $5,000 in annual contributions. He said it cuts red tape for grassroots groups and reduces the paperwork burden for small groups by easing reporting rules. This is about fairness in small campaigns and keeps them in the game without having to pay compliance costs. He talked about small community campaigns and reporting. This empowers local voices to get their message out; more Alaskans can participate in elections. He said he is trying to focus on everyday Alaskans getting their voices heard. 4:27:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE, in response to Representative Himschoot, gave an example of a small neighborhood group that bands together to support a candidate, and he explained that if that group were to spend less than $5000, then, under Amendment 2, they would not need to report. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT indicated that she did not know what the forms currently look like, thus she did not understand what change was being proposed. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said the proposed amendment would allow APOC to simplify the forms. 4:31:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that this is a very conservative change since it still requires reporting. She said her municipality is the same; less than $3,000 meant no reporting to APOC. However, groups have to report. Recently there was a hospital proposition on the Kenai Peninsula Borough and three men wanted to oppose it; they put a flyer out and got fined and in trouble by APOC since they had not reported as a group, even though they thought they were following the law. They needed to hire an attorney. She said she is 100 percent in support of Amendment 2. She thinks it aligns with municipal limits and is a very common-sense amendment to allow people not to be intimidated by the process. The easier it is to engage in the process the better. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that the most important piece of this is the $250 in the final nine days. Local volunteers don't have accountants doing the APOC reports. He said this puts unfair limits on small entities that are contributing small amounts. The amendment is focused more on smaller elections than statewide elections. 4:35:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked Ms. Hebdon to explain the rationale for why they require groups and non-group entities that spend less than $5000 to report. 4:36:23 PM MS. HEBDON said that she doesn't know rationale because I don't know the genesis. There is a provision in the statute that provides for a municipal candidate to file as an exempt candidate if they don't exceed the $5,000 threshold. The exemption is not available to a state candidate or groups. In prior legislature, APOC put forward a provision for grassroots groups, particularly around ballot measures. They still need to report. She said inexperienced people have a certain learning curve. She understands the amendment but is not sure if it captures the will of the bill sponsor. She said she would be happy to work with the sponsor to fine tune it more. 4:38:07 PM CHAIR CARRICK asked Ms. Hebdon to talk about current reporting and what would be considered a simple reporting form. MS. HEBDON said that what is required is what's required for candidates. They need to disclose contributions. She talked about the process of filing expenditure reports and the timelines to provide submissions. 4:39:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY said people ask about who is funding campaigns. CHAIR CARRICK clarified that they would still know but it would need a simplified process. She maintained her opposition to Amendment 2 because she doesn't know what simplified reporting would look like and what information would be omitted. She is not sure this amendment provides the necessary clarification. 4:41:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said that she likes Amendment 2 but is struggling on the reporting form, because she thinks it is the process she wants clarified. She agreed with Representative Story regarding the transparency, but she doesn't need a 24-hour report on something that is less than $5,000. MS. HEBDON said the same rules apply across board. CHAIR CARRICK questioned whether changing the word "forms" to "process" would get closer to the intent of [Representative McCabe]. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that he is happy with forms or with process. He said it is not his intent to [name a specific] forms in the legislation. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT suggested expanding it to forms and processes. She is looking at trying to meet goal of Amendment 2 to simplify things. She said she wants to know if this would cause APOC to run afoul of the rules the legislature has given them. MS. HEBDON said that part of her conflict with the proposed amendment is that it's coming in under AS 15.13.030. She said she understands the goal of the amendment but is not sure if it gets there. It addresses the timing of the report but not the substance of it. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked about tabling Amendment 2. 4:46:27 PM The committee took an at-ease from 4:46 p.m. to 4:54 p.m. 4:54:15 PM CHAIR CARRICK summarized the discussion thus far on Amendment 2. 4:54:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND said that the amendment makes some sense. He said he agrees with the intent and appreciates that small groups would have simpler reporting. In the spirit of original bill, he reflected, there was more transparency and clarity. He expressed uncertainty about the change to the "$5,000 group," as relates to reporting requirements. He said at the moment he does not support Amendment 2 and wonders "what a small group really is." 4:56:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT pointed to language in the amendment and bill and asked about the requirements pertaining to the under $5,000 marker. 4:57:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said a group is defined by the amount of money; it could be 100 people, but if it collects less than $5,000 it is a small group. CHAIR CARRICK asked if this means small groups are exempt from reporting requirements. 4:58:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE CALVIN SCHRAGE, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor of HB 16, reviewed that currently, "folks are required to report contributions that exceed $250 within 9 days of the election." That said, he noted that Section 10 does exempt a group from having to report donations larger than $250 if the total contributions total less than $5,000 for the year. He expressed concern about going one penny over the $5,000 threshold the day before an election and the having to go back and report all the previous $250 donations. 5:00:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said she thinks clarification has already been made that Section 8, page 2, and Section 10 are tied together. There's reporting made but within the 24-hour threshold. She knows members in areas of the state without cell reception, and because they had a $250 contribution and didn't get the report in within the window, they were fined by APOC. She said there needs to be an exception for this situation where a person has no way to upload reports. 5:02:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that the answer to Representative Schrage is that there are already limits to how much can be received. It is up to groups to determine their limits and understand processes. This is incumbent on the managers, and it is said that everyone knows when they are close to a limit. 5:03:59 PM CHAIR CARRICK maintained her objection. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Moore, Himschoot, McCabe, and Vance voted in favor of Amendment 2. Representatives Holland, Story, and Carrick voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 4-3. 5:05:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said he would not offer Amendment 3 at this time. 5:05:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to adopt Amendment 4 to HB 16, as amended, labeled 34-LS0217\A.7, Bullard, 4/4/25, which read: Page 1, line 3: Delete "and" Page 1, line 4, following "requirements": Insert "; and relating to administrative  complaints filed with the Alaska Public Offices  Commission" Page 3, following line 14: Insert new bill sections to read:  "* Sec. 8. AS 15.13.380(e) is amended to read: (e) If the commission accepts the complaint for consideration on a regular rather than an expedited basis, the commission shall notify the respondent within seven days after receiving the complaint and shall investigate the complaint. The commission shall  complete an investigation under this section within 90  days after the date the commission receives the  complaint unless the commission extends the  investigation for good cause. The respondent may answer the complaint by filing a written response with the commission within 15 days after the commission notifies the respondent of the complaint. The commission may grant the respondent additional time to respond to the complaint only for good cause. The commission shall hold a hearing on the complaint not later than 45 days after the respondent's written response is due. Not later than 10 days after the hearing, the commission shall issue its order. If the commission finds that the respondent has engaged in or is about to engage in an act or practice that constitutes or will constitute a violation of this chapter or a regulation adopted under this chapter, the commission shall enter an order requiring the violation to be ceased or to be remedied and shall assess civil penalties under AS 15.13.390.  * Sec. 9. AS 15.13.380 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (l) Beginning 50 days after a complaint is filed, the commission shall provide the complainant a report on the status of the commission's investigation at least every 10 days." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. CHAIR CARRICK objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that this amendment sets timelines for APOC. He said the idea of the amendment is to make government work faster. It forces APOC to investigate within 90 days after the date the commission receives the complaint. He said by setting timelines the amendment would ensure those who break campaign rules would face quick consequences not endless delays. Additionally, beginning 50 days after a complaint is filed, the commission shall provide the complainant with a report on the status of the commission's investigation at least every 10 days. This would keep Alaskans in the loop, keeping citizens informed regarding complaints. Too often campaign violations get put on the back burner Amendment 4 is about making system work better with clear guidelines. He said it empowers Alaskans to keep elections clean and returns power to citizens. Alaska deserves an APOC system that works, he opined. 5:08:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY said that she wants to hear from the bill sponsor. 5:08:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that he supports what the amendment is trying to do but is concerned about the timeframe in which notification is provided; he is worried it will require additional staff and a fiscal note. He indicated that he wants to mirror the ballot initiative as much as possible. He asked to hear from APOC. MS. HEBDON said that under procedural regulations, APOC must notify a respondent within 7 days of a complaint filing. There is a 15-day limit for answering questions and investigation within 30 days. The commission meets only three times a year and the 90 days might be difficult if the commission is not fully staffed. REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked about history of staffing over last three years. MS. HEBDON replied that the commission has experienced considerable turnover of staff. She said there is a heavy workload and a [considerable] learning curve. 5:11:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether currently, if there is a complaint and an investigation and fines involved, fines continue to pile up daily until APOC meets. MS. HEBDON answered no. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what the timeline for action is once a complaint is filed. MS. HEBDON said that it needs to be accepted in 7 days and respondents have 15 days to respond, and APOC needs to complete investigation in 30 days. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said she supports the amendment and has heard stories of a long delay. She said it is no reflection on APOC but knowing there is a timeline helps with the anxiety surrounding complaints. 5:13:40 PM CHAIR CARRICK asked Representative McCabe if it would be his intention to have the investigations completed within 90 days. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said he knows of two complaints over 90 days old that haven't been investigated. He said there were 24 complaints last year. He asked whether every complaint has to be heard by the commission or only those that were accepted. He queried how many complaints APOC received last year and asked whether the commission listed the complaints on the website. He commented about APOC meeting only three times a year. MS. HEBDON responded that 13 complaints were filed in 2024; complaints that are accepted and investigated go to the commission, as it is the final decision maker. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE offered his understanding that the commission meets three times a year; therefore, it could be 90 days before a complaint goes in front of the commission. MS. HEBDON answered that depending on the timing of when an investigation is completed, it can be months before it goes before the commission. 5:16:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said he views Amendment 4 as redundant given the other deadlines. He talked about bill language and questioned whether [APOC] was already in violation of the timeline in statute. MS. HEBDON replied essentially yes, in terms of the language that APOC shall hold a hearing on the complaint no more than 45 days after the respondent's written response, the commission is in violation of that provision for at least 80 percent of the complaints it has received. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that it makes him indifferent to Amendment 4. He noted that APOC has serious constraints to meet the deadlines already in statute. He added that he sees the proposed amendment as harmless, but questioned that if it harmless it may then be unnecessary to adopt. He reiterated that he is neutral on the issue. CHAIR CARRICK said that she concurs. She agrees with the substance of the amendment. 5:19:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked Ms. Hebdon how many complaints have been in the queue over 90 days. MS. HEBDON estimated eight. In response to a follow-up comment, she explained that the time leading up to an election is the busiest, and two staff members left during that time. She added that it is not uncommon to receive a slurry of complaints before and after general election. 5:20:40 PM CHAIR CARRICK removed her objection to Amendment 4. There being no further objection, Amendment 4 was adopted. 5:20:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to adopt Amendment 5 to HB 16, as amended, labeled 34-LS0217\A.8, Bullard, 4/6/25, which read: Page 1, line 1, following "Act": Insert "requiring the disclosure of certain  persons who coordinate and aggregate individual  campaign contributions;" Page 1, following line 11: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 2. AS 15.13 is amended by adding a new section to read: Sec. 15.13.042. Bundled contribution disclosures.  (a) Each candidate shall make a full report, on a form prescribed by the commission, (1) listing (A) the name, address, and employer of each person reasonably known by the candidate to be a person who provided bundled contributions to the candidate in an aggregate amount greater than $10,000 during an election cycle; and (B) the aggregate amount of bundled contributions provided by each person who provided bundled contributions to the candidate during the election cycle; (2) filed in accordance with AS 15.13.110 and certified correct by the candidate or campaign treasurer. (b) In this section, '"bundled contribution"' means a contribution (1) forwarded from a contributor or contributors to a candidate by a person; or (2) received by a candidate from a contributor or contributors but credited by the candidate to a person through a record, designation, or other recognition that the person was responsible for raising the contribution." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 3, following line 6: Insert a new bill section to read:  "* Sec. 8. AS 15.13.110(a) is amended to read: (a) Each candidate, group, and nongroup entity shall make a full report in accordance with AS 15.13.040 and 15.13.042 for the period ending three days before the due date of the report and beginning on the last day covered by the most recent previous report. If the report is a first report, it must cover the period from the beginning of the campaign to the date three days before the due date of the report. If the report is a report due February 15, it must cover the period beginning on the last day covered by the most recent previous report or on the day that the campaign started, whichever is later, and ending on February 1 of that year. The report shall be filed (1) 30 days before the election; however, this report is not required if the deadline for filing a nominating petition or declaration of candidacy is within 30 days of the election; (2) one week before the election; (3) 105 days after a special election; and (4) February 15 for expenditures made and contributions received that were not reported previously, including, if applicable, all amounts expended from a public office expense term account established under AS 15.13.116(a)(8) and all amounts expended from a municipal office account under AS 15.13.116(a)(9), or when expenditures were not made or contributions were not received during the previous year." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. CHAIR CARRICK objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said Amendment 5 would force candidates who were bundling aggregated cash over $10,000 to submit a disclosure. He said it is not about banning speech but seeing the players "behind the scenes." He said it empowers Alaskans over insiders. He talked about using groups for protection, and at least one issue where a bundler refused to disclose his financial source. This amendment drags bundling and shady deals into the light but does not limit contributions. Voters get facts and candidates get funds. This will let Alaskans see if non-residents are using a middleman. He said it puts Alaskans ahead of donor interests and promotes transparency. 5:24:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that his understanding was this is already illegal. He said it is prohibited to collect and aggregate, and in this instance, the amendment may make things less clear. The intent is already met by statute. 5:25:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked Ms. Hebdon if any big group has refused to answer APOC's question regarding who made contributions. MS. HEBDON replied that in the past, there have been organizations that refuse to disclose funding but do not contribute to candidate's campaigns directly. She is not aware of that issue on a candidate campaign. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE clarified he was asking about an independent expenditure group. MS. HEBDON said she did not recall specifically. 5:27:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Mr. Bullard to confirm whether this was already illegal. MR. BULLARD responded that this was currently prohibited. He said this may apply to a category of contributions that isn't prevented if organized by a bundler. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said that bundling is prohibited but this amendment addresses something that is not currently in statute. MR. BULLARD said that bundling is not prohibited in this amendment in subsection (b). MS. HEBDON said that only people authorized to receive are candidates; she thinks the concept of bundling is prohibited. 5:29:52 PM CHAIR CARRICK mentioned the need for clarification as to whether language is duplicative or new and the amendment resulting in a needed title change. She said she does not want the legislation to be overly complicated. 5:30:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that he has about 10 pages worth of descriptions of bundling. He described cases in which bundlers have had $10 million given but list only their own name as contributor. He talked about use of a third party, which is not currently prohibited in statute as Mr. Bullard said. He gave an example of a third party as a middleman. 5:32:09 PM CHAIR CARRICK asked for clarification as to whether the candidate is a bundler. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE clarified that "Mr. Jones" could collect money from others and can contribute to "Mr. Smith." Mr. Jones doesn't have to report who gave him the money. 5:32:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that he heard Representative McCabe talk about collecting donations for independent expenditure. The only person able to receive a donation is the candidate. He said he is quite confident that bundling described in this amendment is already prohibited. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that he thinks this is specific to a candidate. He restated what Mr. Bullard and Ms. Hebdon said. CHAIR CARRICK said she is hesitant to adopt any amendment over which there is confusion. She maintained her objection to Amendment 5. 5:34:40 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Moore, and McCabe voted in favor of Amendment 5. Representatives Himschoot, Story, and Carrick voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 5 failed by a vote of 3-3. 5:35:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said he would not offer Amendments 6 and 7. CHAIR CARRICK noted that Amendment 8 had already been addressed. 5:36:11 PM CHAIR CARRICK moved to adopt Amendment 9 to HB 16, as amended, labeled 34-LS0217\A.16, Bullard, 4/2/25, which read: Page 3, following line 6: Insert a new bill section to read:  "* Sec. 7. AS 15.13.078(a) is amended to read: (a) Notwithstanding AS 15.13.070, an [THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER DO NOT PROHIBIT THE] individual who is a candidate may contribute an amount  not to exceed $6,000 [FROM GIVING ANY AMOUNT] of the candidate's own money [OR OTHER THING OF VALUE] to the campaign of the candidate during an election cycle. Donations made by the candidate to the candidate's own campaign shall be reported as contributions in accordance with AS 15.13.040 and 15.13.110." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. CHAIR CARRICK objected for the purposed of discussion. She noted there were constitutional concerns regarding freedom of speech. The amendment would limit personal contributions to $6,000 per election cycle. She said she has seen in her region candidates who are personally wealthy dump their own money in their own campaigns. She said ultimately she would withdraw Amendment 9 but wanted to draw attention to challenges for candidates. She said this would continue to represent a barrier to new or young people and those not independently wealthy. 5:38:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that the point that Chair Carrick made demonstrates that the money was not a limitation. She said shared that she was under 40 when first elected and never contributed her own money. She feels that money helps but in no way limits candidates; engaging with the public is most important. She said she doesn't want a lack of money to make people feel limited in terms of their running for office. CHAIR CARRICK remarked that money in her race presented a challenge. CHAIR CARRICK moved to withdraw Amendment 9. There being no objection, Amendment 9 was withdrawn. 5:40:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 10 to HB 16, as amended, labeled 34-LS0217\A.17, Bullard, 4/7/25, which read: Page 1, line 1, following "Act": Insert "requiring a group supporting or opposing  a candidate or ballot proposition in a state or local  election to maintain an address in the state;" Page 1, following line 11: Insert new bill sections to read:  "* Sec. 2. AS 15.13.050(a) is amended to read: (a) Before making an expenditure in support of or in opposition to a candidate or before making an expenditure in support of or in opposition to a ballot proposition or question or to an initiative proposal application filed with the lieutenant governor under AS 15.45.020, each person other than an individual shall (1) register, on forms provided by the commission, with the commission; and  (2) provide the person's physical address  in the state or the physical address of the person's  agent registered under (d) of this section.  * Sec. 3. AS 15.13.050 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (d) A person may not register under (a) of this section unless the person has a physical address in the state or registers with the commission an individual resident of the state who maintains a physical address in the state or a domestic corporation authorized to transact business in this state as the person's agent. A person shall notify the commission within 10 days after a change to the person's in-state address, registered agent, or the physical address of the person's registered agent." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. CHAIR CARRICK objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated this amendment requires a group supporting or opposing a candidate or ballot proposition in a state or local election to maintain an address in the state. She said it accomplishes three key things: new address agent requirement, agent qualifications, and registration with APOC. It provides greater clarity to the public regarding who is funding elections. Currently, other states have these requirements. It mirrors established corporation standards and requires continued presence. 5:42:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said this is one of the amendments flagged as having constitutional concerns. He cannot speak with certainty about the amendment and said, in his experience, it is good to look at court rulings. In many cases, other states may not have been scrutinized. 5:44:13 PM MR. BULLARD said he does not know if it raises constitutional issues. It doesn't limit contributions or expenditures. It requires additional disclosures. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said he stood corrected. 5:45:00 PM CHAIR CARRICK said she liked the Amendment 10 unless there was a significant constitutional concern. CHAIR CARRICK removed her objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 10 was adopted. 5:45:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 11 to HB 16, as amended, labeled 34-LS0217\A.18, Bullard, 4/6/25, which read: Page 1, line 3: Delete "and" Page 1, line 4, following "requirements": Insert "; and relating to state election  expenditures and contributions made by a foreign- influenced corporation or foreign national" Page 3, following line 18: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 9. AS 15.13.068(b) and 15.13.068(c) are repealed." Renumber the following bill section accordingly. CHAIR CARRICK objected for discussion. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE talked about foreign nationals in elections. The amendment deletes language to tighten law so foreign groups cannot make contributions in connection with Alaska elections. It removes ambiguity that foreign groups could circumnavigate regulations, maintains prohibition against foreign influence, and strengthens campaign finance laws. A foreign national or foreign-influenced corporation cannot fund state activities. 5:47:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether, if a billionaire offered an incentive to vote in a lottery, this would not be allowed. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that her shorthand answer would be yes, but she suggested clarification from Legislative Legal Services would be helpful. Statute points to federal limit. Alaskans do not want people who are not American to influence them. She knows based off data breaches that other countries try to influence Alaska's elections. 5:49:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that he has no objections to this amendment and thinks it's reasonable. This would be a positive step. MR. BULLARD expressed concern regarding subsection (b), which provides that nothing in state law can conflict with federal law. When dealing with foreign nationals, it is the federal government that "gets to call the shots." He mentioned subsection (c) and noted the complexity of the issue of corporations. He concluded by stating that he does not know that Amendment 11 would create any constitutional issues. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that she thinks her staffer, Bob Ballinger, could provide clarification. 5:51:37 PM BOB BALLINGER, Staff, Representative Vance, Alaska State Legislature, confirmed that subsection (b) limits states from going beyond federal law; therefore, if federal law changed, state law may need to change, as well. 5:53:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY said she was still confused about Amendment 11 and preferred not to see it adopted. 5:53:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND reiterated that points of discussion regarding subsections (b) and (c) and said that he is comfortable with Amendment 11. 5:54:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY thanked Representative Holland for the clarification. 5:54:36 PM CHAIR CARRICK removed her objection to Amendment 11. There being no further objection, Amendment 11 was adopted. 5:55:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to rescind the committee's action in adopting Amendment 2 to HB 16, as amended. There being no objection, it was so ordered. 5:56:25 PM The committee took an at-ease from 5:56 p.m. to 5:57 p.m. 5:57:55 PM CHAIR CARRICK thanked the committee for the robust discussion. 5:58:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to report HB 16, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. 5:58:38 PM REPRESENTATIVES MCCABE and VANCE objected. 5:58:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said she appreciated the work on this bill and consideration of these amendments. She talked about concerns on campaign finance laws and looking at the whole idea of limiting campaign contributions. She said she feels the legislature should not limit campaign free speech. She has heard no concerns about corruption on the last election cycle. She thinks that when it comes to free speech, it comes in many forms; it can come from money or action. She will be voting no on this bill. 6:01:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE, on the topic of corruption, especially with outside money, talked about a candidate slandered by outside money sources and not having enough money to sue. He said it is up to the legislature to direct APOC. He said he can give example after example of corruption in his race. He talked further about outside money and independent expenditure groups. 6:03:22 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Moore, Holland, Himschoot, Story, and Carrick voted in favor of the motion to report HB 16, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. Representatives McCabe and Vance voted against it. Therefore, the CSHB 16(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2. 6:04:37 PM CHAIR CARRICK discussed the upcoming meeting and agenda. 6:05:24 PM ADJOURNMENT  There being no further business before the committee, the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m.