APOC may be off chopping block

JUNEAU -- The Alaska Public Offices Commission may be seeing light at the end of the tunnel, but some legislative watchers are saying an attempt to restore the commission goes too far by loosening restrictions on soft money.

Tuesday, the Senate State Affairs Committee accepted and passed a substitute resolution offered by staff and commissioners of APOC unanimously. The resolution not only reinstates the commission, but makes several changes aimed at updating campaign finance rules and moving toward fully-electronic reporting by

candidates.

Randy Reudrich, chairman of the Alaska Republican Party, said he was in favor of several aspects of the substituted legislation.

"First and foremost, it encourages candidates to fund their campaigns," Reudrich said, referring to increases in allowable loans that can be taken to fund a campaign, as well as increases in the allowed contributions a candidate or political party can accept during a campaign. Reudrich said encouraging what he called a "natural, straightforward, normal procedure to work," was a step in the right direction.

But Alaska Democratic Party Chairman Scott Sterling shared a different view.

"The only people who are pushing this are special interests," Sterling said. While the committee substitute kept APOC in place, Sterling said the initial move to eliminate the commission was nothing more than a Washington Monument-style move to focus attention on the removal, when replacing APOC's laws with a version that opens the door to soft money was the initial intent.

"What this is, is what they've been wanting to do for a decade, to gut getting soft money out of politics and out of campaigns," Sterling said.

Reudrich said he disagreed with Sterling's take on the changes, that all the committee substitute did was increase the funds allowed in campaigns.

"The nuance that this makes it much easier for soft money is totally wrong," Reudrich said. He said arguing that the process of allowing people to contribute to campaigns is wrong, whether through donations directly to the candidate or to a political action committee, was a challenge of the basic tenets of the process of representative government.

The committee substitute bill would increase the amount a group can contribute to a candidate, another group or a nongroup entity from $1,000 per year to $5,000. All that switching between groups before it reaches a candidate renders the source of the money, at best, unclear.

"It's bad politics; it's bad public interest; it's bad for people who want to see soft money taken out of campaigns," Sterling said. He said he was involved in a petition drive in 1994-1995 that would have cut soft money out of Alaska's campaign finance laws. Sterling said there was considerable public interest in the petition -- thousands of people readily signed the petition to change the laws. The matter never went to a vote, however, because the Alaska Legislature pre-empted the vote by changing the regulations themselves. That law, Sterling said, was challenged and is currently in appeal. Sterling said if this version of SB 119 passes, he'll resurrect the drive.

"If the bill passes, we'll do it. We'll do it as a referendum," Sterling said. He's confident the drive will once again get widespread support. "The initiative wasn't a partisan issue for people -- back then it wasn't, and it isn't now."