Lawmakers introduce campaign corporate spending bills

As the 2010 election season approaches, lawmakers in Juneau are mounting a campaign of their own to ensure Alaskans know who is behind high-dollar efforts to court their votes.

Behind the move is a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, referred to as Citizens United, that a state attorney says removes limits on corporate spending and tosses out reporting requirements for campaign ads. The ruling trumps a state ban on corporate spending - outside of direct contributions to candidates - to influence elections.

Several lawmakers quickly brought bills to the table to firm up the state's campaign spending disclosure rules in light of the Supreme Court ruling. The upcoming election is fueling the debate with a sense of urgency, especially among House and Senate Democrats. Most lawmakers agree that Alaskans have a right to know who is spending, and how much, to influence their votes.

Lawmakers aren't wasting time holding hearings, and advocates of tighter disclosure are adamant that new rules must be in place before this year's elections. Several bills before committees attempt to clarify reporting requirements for corporations and unions, while seeking a firm definition of foreign corporations.

Sen. Hollis French, an Anchorage Democrat and candidate for governor, has led the charge in a fast state response. He noted a "great sense of urgency" to get a bill in place to deal with what he expects to be an onslaught of corporate spending in elections.
"Disclose your expenses and put disclaimers in your ads so we can understand who is speaking to us," said French, summarizing the intent.

The bill would also apply to advertising related to ballot measures. Alaskans had a tough time trying to unravel a web of funding by "groups" in 2008 for and against the Clean Water Initiative related to the controversial Pebble Mine. Under the new proposals, entities running ads would have to post their top five financial backers, along with a "paid for by" disclaimer on the ads themselves, as well as comply with more detailed reporting to the Alaska Public Offices Commission.

Rep. Max Gruenberg, D-Anchorage, said he wants to make sure a penalty is included for violations.

"If a corporation wants to influence legislation or the election of candidates or whatever, one thing it can do is bribe people," Gruenberg said. "But the other thing it can do is commit various campaign violations that will just as surely influence elections as if they bribe people directly."

Members of the Senate's State Affairs Committee, which heard one the bills Tuesday, lauded the effort. "Sen. French should be commended," Sen. Joe Paskvan, D-Fairbanks, said. "Without anything here, there would be the potential for inequities in the election that's coming up."

Sen. Kevin Meyer, R-Anchorage, wanted clarification on language in the bill, which he dubbed excellent. He also wants to ensure unions would be subject to the same rules as corporations.

"If (corporations and unions) want to be involved in the political process, then they should fully disclose," he said. "That's the right that we have, to see who is contributing."