The chairman of a state House committee says a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited spending in political campaigns by corporations and unions makes a mess of Alaska campaign law, and he wants the governor, not lawmakers, to take the lead on repairs.
State Rep. Bob Lynn, an Anchorage Republican and chairman of the State Affairs Committee, told state lawyers Thursday that the issues are complex and the Legislature will be scrambling to get a bill through in the 90-day session. Thursday was the 24th day.
"Are you folks coming up with something now, are you drafting something now? Or do you expect somebody in the Legislature to do that? Because I think it needs to be clarified," Lynn asked assistant attorney general John Ptacin.
"As an attorney in the Department of Law, it's my job to alert policymakers of the changing landscape," Ptacin said, avoiding a direct answer.
"I think it's a mess at this point," Lynn said.
If the Parnell administration produced a bill, Lynn said his committee would use it as a starting point. "We'll do what needs to be done."
In its January decision, the Supreme Court ruled that federal campaign finance law that barred corporations from spending on political campaigns violated their free speech rights under the First Amendment. The case sprang out of an effort by a private group called Citizens United to run television ads promoting a film it made against then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
"No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations," the justices concluded.
The expansive ruling means that Alaska can't bar corporate spending either, Ptacin told the State Affairs Committee on Thursday morning. But it doesn't invalidate existing laws requiring those that spend on campaigns to disclose what they spend and who they are, he said. Those laws nevertheless are in "a state of flux," he said.
"If an expenditure's made, there are still laws that are constitutional which allow us to know who's speaking, what they are spending on the speech and when they make the communication ... they have to tell you who they are," he said, using the term "speech" to refer to campaign ads and other forms of paid electioneering.
Ptacin's reading of whether current Alaska law requires corporations to disclose their newfound right to spend differs from what a lawyer for the Legislature wrote in an opinion to lawmakers last month.
"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 these expenditures," Alpheus Bullard wrote in the opinion.
Meanwhile, in the state Senate, the Judiciary Committee is relying on Bullard's opinion and has asked legislative lawyers to draft a bill requiring disclosures, disclaimers and reporting by corporations and labor unions. A bill should be introduced next week, said the committee chairman, Anchorage Democrat Hollis French.
"We're going to make darn sure when we get done that there is an unmistakable duty to disclose and report," French said. "So that reasonable minds can't differ on the question."
Under current law, unions and corporations already can spend unlimited amounts in political fights over ballot measures, and are supposed to report that spending to the Alaska Public Offices Commission within 10 days.
Other areas of state campaign finance law stand, Ptacin said Thursday. The Supreme Court decision does not allow corporations and unions to donate directly to candidates. Individuals can still give a maximum of $500 a year to a candidate, and the rules governing ballot measures and political parties don't change.
Based on the committee discussion, state Rep. Paul Seaton, R-Homer, said he sees three main areas for action: making sure expenditures are disclosed quickly, identifying the true source of the funds, and whether contributions can be deducted from state corporation taxes, which legislators seemed to oppose. He said he wondered whether the state could require instant online disclosure of spending.
Lynn said he also wanted oversight over any campaign spending by multi-national corporations.
At Rep. Craig Johnson's suggestion, Lynn said he'd write a letter to the governor seeking legislation.
The Attorney General's Office is still examining the ruling. State lawyers expect to complete their formal legal analysis by next week, Deputy Attorney General Craig Tillery told the State Affairs Committee.
It's premature to say what the administration will do until Gov. Sean Parnell is briefed, said Sharon Leighow, a spokeswoman for the governor.
By LISA DEMER
ldemer@adn.com