Legislature examining corporate campaigning

Such direct campaign expenditures in Alaska were illegal before the ruling on Jan. 21 allowing unlimited campaign spending by corporations and labor unions. Those Alaska laws now appear to be void, according to lawyers working for the Legislature.

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing Wednesday on the impacts of the ruling. Members of the panel from both parties said they want to work on creating disclosure rules and attempt to deal with a possibility that foreign corporations could pump huge amounts of money into Alaska elections through American subsidiaries.

Anchorage Republican Sen. Lesil McGuire said Alaska, with its small population and media market, is now uniquely vulnerable to big-money influence.

"Let's say it was a company that wanted to take over shipping routes. And they were a multimillion-dollar company, and they came in 60 days before the election and bought up all the spots. How would regular Alaskans ever hear anything else but that message?" McGuire said in an interview.

McGuire said she'd like to at least put a limit on the amount corporations can spend on Alaska elections. But enacting any dollar limit appears to be forbidden under the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The court ruling does allow the state to require companies to publicly disclose their election spending. But corporations aren't currently covered under state laws requiring disclosure, according to the Legislature's lawyers. That's because there was no reason to include them, since corporate spending was against the law anyway.

"Given the silence of our state statutes and the likelihood that our existing statutes will not be enforced following the (U.S. Supreme Court's) holding in Citizens United, there are now no limits on independent expenditures made by for-profit corporations and no statutory disclosure, identification, or reporting requirements for those disclosures," said a legal opinion on the matter by a lawyer for the Legislature, Alpheus Bullard.

Under the Supreme Court ruling, corporations and unions can't give directly to candidates. But they will be able to spend unlimited amounts on advertisements for -- or against -- those on the ballot.

Other Alaska limits on campaign contributions stand after the Supreme Court ruling. That includes the $500 annual limit on individual donations to candidates and the requirement those be disclosed.

"The way I read this right now, corporations have more rights to free speech than regular, ordinary Alaskans," said Anchorage Democratic Sen. Bill Wielechowski, a member of the judiciary committee.

Alaska's ban on corporate contributions already has been challenged by the Wasilla-based Conservative Patriots Group in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. It asked the Alaska Public Offices Commission to rewrite the rules by Feb. 15 so the group can donate to candidates for Anchorage Assembly in the April 6 election.

Legislators said there appears to be little sense of urgency from the state Department of Law, which advises the Alaska Public Offices Commission and enforces Alaska campaign laws. Assistant Attorney General John Ptacin told the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday that his office is reviewing closely what the Supreme Court ruling could mean for Alaska.

Committee Chairman Hollis French, D-Anchorage, asked when an opinion from the attorney general might be forthcoming. He noted the Legislature has to finish making any changes to state laws before its session ends April 19.

"I couldn't speculate, but given the time parameters it could be relatively quickly," Ptacin answered.

Ptacin did suggest that corporations and unions might already be required to disclose campaign spending under Alaska law because they're "persons."

French, who is running for governor, said the judiciary committee isn't going to wait for word from the attorney general and will start on a package of proposed changes to state law. That will include disclosure requirements and possibly an attempt to block corporations with a majority of foreign shareholders from advocating for Alaska candidates.

Congress is also wrestling with the issue of foreign influence. It remains illegal for foreign corporations themselves to spend money on American elections, but there's debate over what to do about their U.S. subsidiaries or any domestic corporation foreign nationals own or control.

Anchorage Democratic Sen. Wielechowski called the Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited corporate spending "probably the worst decision in my lifetime."

North Pole Republican Sen. John Coghill disagreed, saying so-called "527" groups -- tax-exempt organizations named for a provision of the federal tax code -- were already advertising with corporate and union dollars. He said the state shouldn't restrict free speech because of wealth.

But Coghill said state law does need to require the same disclosure of campaign spending by corporations that it does for individual Alaskan donors.

"To make sure that if they're going to speak we know who is speaking, what they're speaking about, and maybe even the cost of what it takes for them to speak," he said. "There needs to be accountability."

The state House hasn't taken up the issue of the Supreme Court ruling. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jay Ramras, R-Fairbanks, said he doesn't see it as urgent matter. Ramras said he doubted corporate money is going to focus on this year's Alaska elections and suggested the state could wait and see how other states deal with it.

Read more from Juneau on our Alaska Politics blog: adn.com/alaskapolitics.