Lawmakers introduce campaign corporate spending bills
| Mar 2, 2010Tightening corporate campaign spending rules before this year's elections is a priority for most lawmakers. Similar bills are moving in the House and Senate, with two committee bills serving as the likely vehicles:
* The House State Affairs Committee bill, HB 409, was heard Tuesday and held for an additional hearing. Amendments are pending that could place more stringent disclosure and disclaimer rules on corporate and union campaign spending.
* The Senate Judiciary Committee bill, SB 284, has gotten approval from the State Affairs Committee, with a hearing planned for Monday. The League of Women Voters has testified in favor of the bill.
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."
Alaska banned corporate campaign spending to influence voters on candidates before the recent Supreme Court decision, although groups could be formed to weigh in on initiatives. In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, corporations and unions now can't give directly to candidates, but they can spend as much as they want on advertising for and against candidates. The court ruled corporations and unions, like individuals, have a right to free speech. That includes the right to spend money running ads for or against candidates.
The Alaska Public Offices Commission, which regulates campaign reporting, has found that allowing corporations and unions would require more staff time to regulate. The commission estimated about $131,000 for this fiscal year, and about $78,700 each year after to fund a full-time employee to manage the additional reporting workload.
Contact Rena Delbridge at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Miller victory: How Murkowski fumbled in GOP primary 
Murkowski v. Miller: What happened? 
Who's Joe Miller? 
Missing Alaska pilot has crash history 
In Alaska's Joe Miller, Sarah Palin finds her Rocky Balboa
I also think that unions should forego non-disclosure in the interests of getting corporate campaign underwriters to declare the amount of their support to their special interest causes.
The amount of union money in elections is picayune, compared to the flood of money spent by coal, oil, pharmaceutical, insurance and other overwhelmingly powerful interests.
Large stock exhange-listed corporations are typically owned by mutual or investment funds, which rarely have a say in selection of board of directors. Individual investors almost never have a say in how corporate political funds are spent.
What Alaska and the rest of the country needs is a constitutional amendment that removes the status of corporations as "persons," with few of the responsibilities of citizenship, but all of the rights, and the lion's share of the ability to take advantage of those rights.
Five Reagan appointees, Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist (Nixon appointee elevated to Chief Justice), Scalia and the lying Thomas effected a coup de etat, in their Bush v. Gore decision.
The same lineup, essentially, prevailed in the Citizens' United v. FEC case, with Roberts having replaced the old perjurious racist, Rehnquist, and Alito subbing in for O'Connor, both appointed by a grateful Bush II.
Hopefully, the Alaska Legislature (and I wonder about the House) has the will and the competence to craft a statute that will force disclosure of the flood of money in corporate interests and which would survive a further assault by the Gang of Five.