Latest news with #HB16
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
At adjournment, Alaska Legislature leaves elections overhaul, campaign finance bills undone
Rep. Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage, speaks to the Alaska House of Representatives on Friday, April 25, 2025. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon) The Alaska Legislature adjourned its regular session on Tuesday without finishing work on a major elections bill or a bill reimposing limits on cash donations to election candidates. House Bill 16, the campaign finance bill, and Senate Bill 64, the elections reform legislation, are expected to return when the Legislature resumes work in January, and they could be part of a wave of major legislation that advances through the Capitol early next year. 'We got really close with the election bill, and I think the prospects for passing next year are good,' said Speaker of the House Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham. 'I expect that we may have a legitimate shot at passing that bill early next session,' he said. Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, said that both bills could have gotten legislative approval, but they would have been vetoed by Gov. Mike Dunleavy. 'We were told flat out, the governor would veto it, by someone in the governor's office,' Wielechowski said. The governor's communications office did not respond to an email asking whether Wielechowski's statement was accurate. If enacted, HB 16 would, among other things, limit Alaskans to $2,000 in donations per candidate in each two-year election cycle. Alaska currently has no limit on the amount of money a person can donate to a candidate. A ballot measure is slated for the 2026 election, but the restrictions could come into place earlier, if the Legislature approves. SB 64, as currently written, is a broad election reform bill that includes significant changes to the way the state deals with absentee voting. 'I think we are poised and in a position where there will be a number of pieces of significant legislation passed next year, probably early on in the session, and we will be dealing with a number of veto overrides during the session,' Wielechowski said. Wielechowski said the possibilities include an elections bill, a campaign finance bill, the long-awaited pension restoration bill and a bill taxing businesses whose owners are taxed separately from the businesses, known as C-corporations. To avoid a veto, Wielechowski and others said they intend to work with Republicans in the House and Senate minorities to try to garner support for a compromise that could win a veto-proof majority of votes in the Legislature. It takes 40 votes to override a policy veto; the coalition majorities in the House and Senate have a combined 35 members, meaning that additional Republican support would be needed. House Minority Leader Mia Costello, R-Anchorage, said she thinks changes to Senate Bill 64 are needed for any compromise. 'I was really proud of our finance team for helping stop that version of the bill, because it really had some things in there that were not productive and were not representative of our values and what we think should be in an elections bill,' she said. 'I do think there is room to make it better. I just think we weren't a part of that discussion (on advancing the bill), but I think they realized that we have to be, moving forward.' On the campaign finance bill, getting a veto-proof majority is 'possible,' said Rep. Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage and the bill's sponsor. 'I've personally spoken to a number of minority members who recognize the need for limits. They were disappointed as well that the bill wasn't taken up. We do have a very high veto threshold, so it'll be a challenge,' Schrage said. 'But as I remind legislators all the time around here, this is going to happen one way or another when this goes to the ballot, so I think we have an opportunity to save the time and expense and put this in place ourselves. If we don't, Alaskans will take action.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Alaska lawmakers near final vote on bill to limit state campaign donations
The Alaska and American flags fly in front of the Alaska State Capitol on Tuesday, April 22, 2025. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon) The Alaska Legislature is nearing a final vote on a bill that would limit state politicians' ability to accept campaign donations. On Wednesday, the Senate Finance Committee voted without objection to advance House Bill 16 to a vote of the full Senate. That vote is expected before lawmakers adjourn their regular session on May 21. The House passed the bill in late April, leaving only the Senate and Gov. Mike Dunleavy as the final potential barriers to enactment. The governor has not commented on the bill but has previously said that he prefers having no limits on campaign donations. HB 16 is identical to a ballot measure slated for a statewide vote in 2026. If HB 16 becomes law, that measure would be canceled, and the 2026 elections would move forward with donation limits in place. HB 16 proposes to limit Alaskans to $2,000 in donations per candidate in each two-year election cycle. For the governor's race, where a lieutenant governor candidate and governor candidate run together on a single ticket, the limit would be $4,000. The limit for donations from one person to a political party or group would be $5,000. If a group wants to donate to a candidate, the limit is $4,000, or $8,000 for the governor's race. Those limits would be adjusted for inflation every 10 years. The new limits are required because a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2021 that the state's prior limits were unconstitutional. The Dunleavy administration declined to appeal that ruling. On Wednesday, Sen. James Kaufman, R-Anchorage, proposed amending the bill to include higher donation limits equivalent to those in federal law. The committee voted down that amendment, and Schrage said he prefers to keep the bill in line with the ballot measure. Doing otherwise could run afoul of a clause of the Alaska Constitution that says the Legislature can override an upcoming ballot measure only if it enacts a law 'substantially similar' to the measure. HB 16 is expected to move in parallel with Senate Bill 64, an elections bill moving toward a final vote in the state House, multiple lawmakers said, meaning that both bills are expected to reach final votes about the same time. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Alaska House votes down restrictions and disclosure rules for ‘dark money' campaign cash
The Alaska and American flags fly in front of the Alaska State Capitol on Tuesday, April 22, 2025. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon) Ahead of its vote on a bill to restrict political donations in state elections, members of the House's multipartisan majority rejected a series of amendments that would have expanded the bill. Among the rejected proposals were ideas to require greater disclosure of donations funneled through so-called dark money groups enabled by the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United. The rejected amendments, from Rep. Kevin McCabe, R-Big Lake, would have required prompt disclosure of donations to independent expenditure groups, required advertising disclosures, and sought to limit out-of-state contributions to groups backing ballot measures. Federal courts have struck down Alaska's limits on out-of-state contributions to candidates. Previous bills dealing with independent expenditures haven't advanced to a floor vote, making the rejected amendments significant. Inverting the usual pattern, Republican lawmakers proposed the restrictions, and they were defeated by the votes of independents and Democrats. Speaking on the House floor, McCabe called the lack of disclosure rules for third-party groups 'a critical loophole' in state law. Traditionally in Alaska, Republicans have supported actions to reduce limits on campaign contributions. The Republican Governors Association has repeatedly challenged disclosure rules imposed by voters in a 2020 ballot measure, and a Republican-backed lawsuit led to the elimination of Alaska's campaign finance limits in 2022. A ballot measure scheduled for Alaska's 2026 elections would reimpose some limits, but if House Bill 16 becomes law, those limits would come into effect ahead of the election. McCabe argued that HB 16 should be extended to cover independent expenditures, not just direct donations. 'Independent expenditure groups have become a big part of our political campaigns,' he said, speaking on one of his amendments. Other lawmakers noted that most of the political mailers that filled Alaskans' mailboxes last year were from independent expenditure groups, not politicians' campaigns. 'Voters deserve to know who is funding the message,' McCabe said. Rep. Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage and a sponsor of the ballot measure and HB 16, was among the lawmakers who voted against the dark-money amendments. 'I think there is concern amongst the Alaskan public around both contribution limits and independent expenditure spending. However, the dire concern is really around the hole around campaign finance, and so to the maximum extent possible, my efforts were to try and keep the bill constrained to what was approved through the ballot measure, and to address the campaign finance portion of this,' Schrage said. Under the Alaska Constitution, a law can replace a ballot measure only if the underlying bill is 'substantially similar' to the ballot measure. In addition to the dark-money amendments, the House rejected a proposal to exempt most municipal elections from campaign-finance reporting requirements, and an amendment that would have prevented the recipients of state contracts — and their family members — from donating to political campaigns. That amendment was almost identical to a bill rejected by Hawaii's Legislature on the same day that the Alaska House turned down the idea. Several states, including New Jersey, have so-called 'pay for play' disclosure rules; the amendment proposed by Rep. Sarah Vance, R-Homer, would have gone further by actually restricting donations. Schrage said it went too far. 'With that specific amendment, I think my biggest concern was around the fact that family members would be prohibited from making donations to political campaigns,' Schrage said. 'The courts have been pretty clear that we need to be careful about limiting people's free speech, and thanks to Citizens United, political spending is considered free speech.' In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission eliminated restrictions on spending by political groups unaffiliated with a particular politician. Since then, the amount of money spent by independent groups has significantly increased. So has the role of dark money contributions — money funneled through independent groups in order to conceal the identity of the donor. A ballot measure approved by Alaska voters in 2020 requires independent groups to disclose the 'true source' of their contributions, but that measure has exemptions: It doesn't cover ballot measure groups, for example. CONTACT US Schrage said some of the rejected ideas could show up in separate legislation, but he wanted to keep HB 16 confined to the ballot measure that's ready for a vote in 2026. 'There's always this question of, how much do you try to do, and how much can you fit into a bill before it becomes too heavy and too controversial to make it through the process. There is a very strong desire from Alaskans to address our campaign contribution limits, and we have a very clear proposal before us. I wanted to move forward,' he said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
With lawmakers' help, Alaska political donation limits could come before 2026 election
Rep. Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage, speaks to the Alaska House of Representatives on Friday, April 25, 2025. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon) Four years after a federal appeals court eliminated Alaska's limits on political campaign contributions, the Alaska House of Representatives has taken a step toward reimposing them. On Monday, the House voted 22-18 to approve House Bill 16, which mirrors the language of a ballot measure slated to go before voters in 2026. Alaskans are expected to approve the upcoming measure by a wide margin, based on historical trends, but that approval would bring new limits into effect for the 2028 elections at the earliest. If the Legislature approves a substantially similar bill, it would allow limits for the 2026 election and remove the upcoming initiative from the ballot. 'This is something that Alaskans very clearly want,' said Rep. Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage and the sponsor of HB 16. Schrage is also a co-sponsor of the ballot measure. HB 16 proposes to limit Alaskans to $2,000 in donations per candidate in each election cycle. For the governor's race, where a lieutenant governor candidate and governor candidate run together on a single ticket, the limit would be $4,000. The limit for donations from one person to a political party or group would be $5,000. If a group wants to donate to a candidate, the limit is $4,000, or $8,000 for the governor's race. Those limits would be adjusted for inflation every 10 years. Alaska's politicians have been able to collect unlimited amounts of campaign contributions since a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that found the state's prior limits were unconstitutional. In 2021, a three-judge panel of the court ruled that a $500 annual limit — amounting to $1,000 over a two-year cycle — was too low. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a $1,075 limit set by Missouri in 1998 for a two-year cycle was constitutional; adjusted for inflation, that would be roughly $2,100 today. Gov. Mike Dunleavy's administration declined to appeal the 2021 decision, and the Alaska Public Offices Commission implemented it starting with the 2022 election. 'This bill would allow us to reinstate those limits and again provide that protection to Alaskans — and frankly to us as elected officials — in helping to ensure that there is some faith and confidence among Alaskans in their elected officials, acting with integrity and not having undue influence on them by outsized donations,' Schrage said. Each time ballot measures have proposed new limits for political donations, Alaskans have approved them by large margins. Public polling has shown continued large support for new restrictions. Rep. Andy Josephson, D-Anchorage, has been elected to the House four times and spoke in support of the bill. 'I can tell you that, to me, putting these contribution limits in place will help us do what we should be doing, and that is spending more time discussing and hearing from our constituents, learning about the needs and concerns of the voters that we will hopefully represent, and not thinking about the biggest check writers,' he said. Voting against the bill were 18 members of the House's Republican minority caucus. The only member of the caucus to vote in favor of it was Rep. Justin Ruffridge, R-Soldotna. Rep. Sarah Vance, R-Homer, spoke against the bill and urged lawmakers to reject it. 'I believe in Alaskans' right to free speech, and the courts have ruled that political contributions are free speech,' she said. 'We've gone through an entire election cycle without any limits, and I have not once heard on record any specific Alaskan contributions that have given the appearance or showed proof of corruption,' Vance said. That matters because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that limits on campaign donations are legal only if they are needed to avoid quid-pro-quo corruption or the appearance of corruption. Schrage responded to Vance's point by observing that the Alaska Department of Law has already reviewed the similar campaign-limits ballot measure for constitutionality and found no problems. 'It does not get certified unless the limits herein are viewed by our own administration as being constitutional,' he said. Schrage said that it's clear by state history and opinion polling that Alaskans want to restrict campaign contributions, and that legislators should advance HB 16 to the governor's desk. 'I would just encourage my colleagues here to vote yes on the bill,' he said, 'and listen to their constituents who want to see us do something concrete to improve the trust in their elected officials and in their government.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
14-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Political signs don't belong in peaceful HOA neighborhoods
Ohio House Bill 16, sponsored by state Rep. Brian Lorenz (R-Powell) and Rep. Thomas Hall (R-Madison Township), proposes to void existing homeowner associations' yard sign rules as they apply to political signs. HOAs are created by an agreement among homeowners to follow some common rules, which can include a "no signs" rule. HB 16 would override these agreements, letting people not honor their commitments. Let the individual HOAs decide on their own rules. Letter: The Bengals should be grateful to Cincinnati. Instead, the Brown family is greedy Alternatives exist to address the proponents' issues without overriding existing agreements. Reducing the majority needed to change HOA rules, for example, or help prospective homebuyers find out about HOA restrictions. HOAs could establish "reasonable restrictions" regarding political signs, but that involves hiring lawyers and an HOA-wide vote and arguments the HOA didn't ask for. A "no yard sign" rule is a bright-line standard that is easy to apply and keeps our neighborhoods more peaceful. Michael O'Neill, Lewis Center, Ohio This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Proposed Ohio law shouldn't overrule HOAs on yard signs | Letter
