Senate Judiciary Committee - The Overview

I posted my running notes of the hearing, (and I've since added a minute of video) but now I'll try to give an overview of what I thought were the key questions raised and the responses as best as I heard and understood them.

I think the basic questions the committee members were asking were:

1. What Alaska laws are now void?
2. Are there now fewer restrictions on corporations than on people regarding campaign contributions?
3. Corporations are a fiction created by the state. If the state creates them, could not the state impose restrictions?
4. Could a foreign corporation spend unlimited funding to influence an Alaskan election? What about a state corporation owned by foreigners?
5. Given the session is only 90 days what can we do and what should we do to protect the integrity of the elections? And will your analysis be done before the session is over?

I'm sure that I did NOT catch the answers to these questions completely, but I'll give it a general sense.

• What Alaska laws are now void?
• The case does not affect
• Disclosure laws 
• Direct contributions to candidate
• The case does affect
• Independent expenditures for speech (which I understood as issue ads or ads that were done completely independently of a candidate)
• Uncertain
• Affect on foreign corporations, which apparently - but I'm not sure - were not affected.  There are other laws which affect foreign corporations.

• Are there now fewer restrictions on corporations than on people regarding campaign contributions? 
• Since the State of Alaska has banned ALL Corporate contributions including issue ads, there are no disclosure laws for corporations.  So, it may well be that corporations have fewer restrictions on them than individuals.

• Corporations are a fiction created by the state. If the state creates them, could not the state impose restrictions?
• The attorneys said that the Supreme Court said corporations had first amendment rights.  It seemed to me that this was a ripe line of reasoning, but that it didn't go in the right direction.  Instead, it perhaps should explore creating an entity that isn't a corporation and doesn't have personhood, but has the other abilities that are wanted.  Sort of the corporate version of civil union.  

• Could a foreign corporation spend unlimited funding to influence an Alaskan election? What about a state corporation owned by foreigners?
• There are other federal laws that deal restrict some rights of foreign corporations, but this still needs to be investigated to be sure.

• Given the session is only 90 days what can we do and what should we do to protect the integrity of the elections? And will your analysis be done before the session is over?
• Determine whether disclosure laws apply to corporations under present law.  If not, can adding "person" in the right places solve this problem? (See AS 13.15.065 and AS 13.15.135 below)
• Check on whether foreign owned corporations or majority owned corporations are affected by this ruling.
• Perhaps expand disclosure laws as well as disclaimer laws (which I understood to mean identifying the sponsor on ads themselves.  There was a question about how to see the actual funder and not some newly formed group created to hide the source of the money.)

Two specific sections of Alaska Statutes were mentioned (actually I think there was a third ending in 040, but I didn't catch it).  One question was whether just adding 'person' to the lists might add corporations to these requirements that now exist for individuals and other groups. 

AS 15.13.065. Contributions.

(a) Individuals, groups, nongroup entities, and political parties 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.

(b) A political party may contribute to a subordinate unit of the political party, and a subordinate unit of a political party may contribute to the political party of which it is a subordinate unit.

(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, 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 15.60.010 , "proposition" includes an issue placed on a ballot to determine whether

(1) a constitutional convention shall be called;

(2) a debt shall be contracted;

(3) an advisory question shall be approved or rejected; or

(4) a municipality shall be incorporated.

And

AS 15.13.135. Independent Expenditures For or Against Candidates.

(a) Only an individual, group, or nongroup entity may make an independent expenditure supporting or opposing a candidate for election to public office. An independent expenditure supporting or opposing a candidate for election to public office, except an independent expenditure made by a nongroup entity with an annual operating budget of $250 or less, shall be reported in accordance with AS 15.13.040 and 15.13.100 - 15.13.110 and other requirements of this chapter.

(b) An individual, group, or nongroup entity who makes independent expenditures for a mass mailing, for distribution of campaign literature of any sort, for a television, radio, newspaper, or magazine advertisement, or any other communication that supports or opposes a candidate for election to public office

(1) shall comply with AS 15.13.090 ; and

(2) shall place the following statement in the mailing, literature, advertisement, or other communication so that it is readily and easily discernible:

 


A lot more than this was discussed, but these were the key questions I heard.  Quite probably I missed some.