Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260727-0900 2026 Primary Election, Ballot Measure No 1 23RCF2, Initiative Hearings

Good morning. This is Lieutenant Governor Nancy Dahlstrom. With me today is Carol Beecher, who is the Director of the Division of Elections. And my staff. April Simpson is here, and also Tatiana Robbins, my chief of staff.

I call this public hearing to order. It's Monday, July 27th, 2026. The purpose of this hearing is to hear from the primary sponsor and group opposing Citizen Initiative 23, RCF2. I will read the ballot summary now. An act limiting contribution to campaigns.

This act would change the amount of money that people and groups can give to state and local political campaigns. A court ruling in 2021 removed the limits on contributions by individuals. With this act, individuals could give $2,000 to candidates and $5,000 to political parties. Groups besides Political parties could give $4,000 to candidates and $5,000 to other parties or groups. Individuals could also give $4,000 to joint campaigns for governor and lieutenant governor, and groups could give $8,000.

These limits would increase with inflation every 10 years beginning in 2031. So the question is, should this initiative become law? This initiative is set to appear on the ballot for the upcoming August 18th, 2026 primary election. Today we will be hearing from the initiative sponsor. We will also provide the opportunity for a group opposing the measure to provide testimony, and we will then open the hearing to public testimony.

I would like to note that an initiative is different than legislation that is brought through the public process in the legislature. The initiative you will be hearing about today will be on the general election ballot this August as is. Unlike legislation that is debated in the legislature, this initiative cannot be amended or altered. Additional information pertaining to this initiative, such as the proposed bill, the ballot summary, and the cost estimate, can be found in the attachment section of the public notice, as well as in the Division of Elections website. In order, uh, for this public hearing to go smoothly, I would like to follow this order.

One, we're going to have a statement of support from the sponsors of the initiative. Two, we will have a statement of opposition. And three, we will then open up the hearing to take public testimony, those in person and online. We will now begin with the sponsor of the initiative. If you could come to the desk and identify yourself and read your statement, we would appreciate it.

All right. Good morning, Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom, Director Beecher, Ms. Robbins. Good to be with you. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Calvin Schraggy, and I represent House District 12 here in Southeast Anchorage, where I'm proud to have grown up and where I'm now with my amazing wife Heather raising our two young daughters, Eleanor and Emmeline.

As I mentioned, it's an honor to be with you today to talk in support of Ballot Measure 1, an act to restore campaign contribution limits here in Alaska. I'd like to start by just thanking you also for the ballot measure booklet for this upcoming primary— excuse me, August election. This ballot pamphlet has been very helpful in just being aware of what's coming up, including on this specific initiative. So what does this initiative do? I'd like to start with just a little bit of background for those that might not be aware.

So for decades, Alaska was a national leader in campaign finance integrity. Integrity. In 2006, 73% of Alaskans voters confirmed these values by supporting strict contribution limits to keep big money from from dominating our political landscape. These limits ensured that the voices of ordinary Alaskans were on the same footing as wealthy and special interests, and that in turn they were heard by their representatives. That changed, however, in 2021 when a federal court struck down Alaska's voter-approved campaign contribution limits, resulting in elections where a donor can give unlimited amounts directly to candidates.

Without these guardrails, wealthy individuals and special interests can have an outsized impact and shift a candidate's focus away from the constituents they're supposed to serve. Today, individuals from anywhere in the country can donate unlimited funds directly to candidates in Alaska's local and state elections. This means that the floodgates are open for wealthy and special interests, particularly those from the lower 48 who may not share Alaskan values and who may inadvertently drown out the voices of everyday Alaskans. When a single donor can spend hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars on a single candidate, It creates a dangerous environment. It not only grants undue influence to the ultra-wealthy, but it also exposes our elected officials to the risk and perception of quid pro quo corruption.

Alaskans from all across our state placed this initiative on the ballot because we believe our elections should belong to us, not the highest bidder. By voting yes, Alaskans are choosing to reinstate fair, reasonable, and constitutional campaign contribution limits. So let me talk about those limits and what this initiative does now. The Campaign Finance Reform Initiative restores balance to our system. And it does this by establishing a framework that allows candidates to raise the necessary campaign funds to mount an effective campaign while preventing any one individual or group from buying an outsized influence.

Specifically, this initiative establishes clear limits by setting a, a contribution limit of up to $2,000 per election cycle from an individual to a candidate and up to $4,000 from a group to a candidate. These amounts are then doubled for a gubernatorial campaign. It also equalizes the playing field by shifting the contribution limit structure to a per-election cycle basis rather than a per-calendar year basis, as was the case under our prior limits. This ensures that new challengers are on a level playing field with incumbents those who are already in office, uh, who often begin fundraising very far in advance. Finally, this act provides for inflationary adjustments, directing the Alaska Public Offices Commission to adjust these limits for inflation every 10 years, ensuring these limits remain reasonable and constitutional over time.

Now, opponents of this measure will oftentimes bring up a number of issues which I'd like to just briefly touch on now. One, opponents will often say that limits favor incumbents. I would argue that that is wrong. Incumbents already have the credibility, having already been elected to office, and the influence to secure very large donations. It's been my experience and my belief that this is true.

Second, opponents will often argue that the court struck down these limits because it's wrong to limit free speech. In actuality, the courts have upheld campaign contribution limits, recognizing that the risk or even perception of corruption in our system is a true and real danger to our democracy.

And finally, they will often argue that inflation will quickly make these limits too low to effectively mount a campaign. This initiative allows for these limits to be adjusted every 10 years so that they remain relevant over time while also being easily understood rather than changing every year or two by a few dozen dollars or $100, making the system overly complex. I believe that this initiative strikes the proper balance for us to be able to have an election system and a campaign finance limitation system that is easily understood and strikes that right balance between being able to exercise free speech and also being able to have faith and trust in our democracy and in our elections. So in conclusion, I'd like to emphasize that this initiative addresses judicial concerns while reflecting what Alaskans have consistently demanded. Fair elections, and represent— representatives who answer to voters.

This initiative does not favor any specific party. It simply ensures that everyone plays by the same rules. I humbly request that Alaskans vote yes to protect Alaskan voices, restore Alaska's tradition of accountability, and keep our elected officials focused on the people who live and work in Alaska, not on outside megadonors and special interests. Again, I want to thank you for your time today, for the opportunity to be here with you and to present on this important initiative which Alaskans all across the state have come together to get on the ballot here in August. Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Sharagi, for that statement. Appreciate you being here. Thank you.

Do we have— Yes, we do. Invited testimony is online, so we will now have the opportunity to hear from Amy Demboski, who is online to give testimony opposing this legislation. Ms. Demboski, can you hear me? Yes, Lieutenant Governor, I can hear you. Wonderful.

Please proceed. Thank you, Lieutenant Governor. My name is Amy Demboski. I'm a resident of Palmer, and I am joining with former State Representative Liz Vasquez, then Carpenter, and former State Senator David Wilson in opposing Ballot Measure 1. Proposition 1 wants you to think that it's for fairness, but it actually limits your right as an individual Alaskan to support the causes you believe in.

While the goal is to change how much money people can give in campaigns, the actual result would hurt freedom of speech and ignore how the real world works. Campaign contributions are a form of political speech. To limit someone's ability to support a candidate is to limit their voice in the democratic process. In 2021, a court ruled that individuals should not have these types of limits on their donations. This is because giving money to a candidate is a way of expressing political opinion.

By putting a cap back on individual donations, this act makes it harder for regular people to have a big impact. When we limit how much people can give, we make it harder for new or outsider candidates to raise enough money to get their message out and we give a leg up to incumbents. This kind of cap helps only those politicians who already are in power. The Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United have shown that governments should not be capping political support, yet this initiative does exactly that. Reintroducing new caps creates a pay-to-play barrier where only those who already possess significant name recognition can thrive, effectively silencing the grassroots support necessary for insurgent or unconventional candidates.

There are multiple issues in this particular, uh, this particular ballot measure. One is how it handles the rising cost of living or inflation. The initiative says these limits will only go up once every 10 years. A decade-long freeze on contribution limits is a long time. The value can drop every year of your money according to multiple studies, this, this claim that somehow this is going to stop corruption is just absolutely unproven.

Voters should reject Proposition 1. When I look at this individually, I heard, I heard, uh, Representative Schraggy say this is about establishing balance, but it doesn't do that at all. Effectively, what this proposition does is it takes the individual voter and it limits you to $1,000 per year effectively $2,000 a campaign cycle, but it takes PACs and union support from the current $1,000 cap and it raises it to $4,000. So it contri— it quadruples the amount PACs, political action committees, and unions can give to candidates while at the same time capping and diminishing the voice of regular Alaskans. If they want to talk about an equitable playing field, this is absolutely not true.

Under existing $1,000 limit, 10 separately organized labor union PACs could collectively give a candidate $10,000. But under Ballot Measure 1, those same 10 PACs could give a candidate $40,000, where an individual Alaskan is potentially limited to $2,000 for the entire election cycle. It's fundamentally unfair It is clearly a strategy to try to dry up cash to certain political groups, and we recommend that voters reject Proposition 1. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Domboski.

Appreciate you being here to give the opposing side. We will now go to public testimony, and I'm not seeing anyone here in the room that hasn't already testified on this ballot measure, so we'll go online. And the first person in the queue is former Representative Paul Seaton, who's testifying on behalf of himself. Can you hear me, Mr. Seaton?

Uh, thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, please proceed with your testimony. Well, thank you. This is Paul Seaton, a resident of Homer, Alaska, and I support voting yes on reinstating campaign contribution limits.

The proposed $1,000 a year would almost equal the original $500 adjusted for inflation. And instituting that as a $2,000 per 2-year election cycle makes sense for reporting and also equalizes the money between candidates regardless of when they file for the election cycle. Doubling that amount to $5,000 to parties or other groups means that influence is broadly distributed there as well. Building in a reasonable inflation adjustment cures that— the problem. Since our Attorney General did not appeal, we have been left with the unlimited donations mostly coming from outside individuals or groups.

We need to reduce that dominating influence from outside and protect Alaskan voices by passing this initiative And I encourage, uh, Alaskans to vote in favor. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Seaton, for your testimony. The next person in the queue is someone by the name of Lynn. Lynn, if you could identify your first and last name and please proceed, I would appreciate it.

Yes, my name is Lynn Sharpin. I'm a Anchorage voter and I have only voted Alaska. I pay close attention to elections, and I want to see people vote yes on this initiative. It protects billionaires and the wealthy people from taking over our elections. It protects people who live outside of the state from donating a lot of money.

Governor Dunleavy got, I heard, I read, a quarter of a million dollars from his brother who lives in Texas to help him with his campaign. And lots of other people over the years, including some of the incumbents this year, are getting huge amounts of money from other people. So I oppose it. The average person doesn't have more than maybe $10, $50, or $100 to give to a candidate that they really want to see get in. And if people are giving $1,000, $10,000, or $100,000, that wipes out their little tiny voice.

And many people don't even have $100 to spare. I know people who are hard-pressed to keep their utilities current. They come in with cash to the utility companies and make a payment in good faith that their utilities will continue until their next paycheck when they can come in with more money. It's a rip-off. It's, um, not democratic.

And I very much support this initiative, and I thank the people who are standing up for democracy by promoting this initiative. Thank you. Thank you, Lynn, for your testimony.

We currently do not have anyone else in the room to testify. We do not have anyone online to testify. We are going to be here until 11 o'clock to accept testimony on Ballot Measure 1, so we will just— at ease. Till we have the next caller or the next constituent come in the room, and then we will be back online. Thank you.

We are going to come back online for additional testimony. Dialing in from Juneau is Doug Woodby. Doug, can you hear me? Yeah, hi, this is Doug Woodby in Juneau. Can you hear me okay?

Yes, please proceed with your testimony, Doug. Well, thanks so much. Yeah, so I believe it's important to vote yes on 1 because it's just obvious how our elections are biased by too much money. And we've recently seen how the vote in the Senate and the House were totally biased by Jeffrey Hildebrand's interest in his oil company and preventing a yes vote on the pipeline. And we just see so much of this.

We should, uh, limit campaign contributions, uh, so that the people's voice is not drowned out by too much money. And that's all I have to say, and thank you very much. Thank you, Doug. Appreciate your testimony.

We will go back at ease again until we have additional testimony. Thank you.

Hello, I am back with you and we have one more person online to testify. Timothy Whip from Homer, can you hear me?

Hello? Hello, Timothy, please identify yourself and proceed with your testimony.

Yeah, my name is Tim Whip, the BHIP, and I want to, uh, say that I support Ballot Measure 1 because I do think we need to re-establish clear limits on contributions. And also we have to equalize the playing field for, uh, for the money I've put into, uh, elections. And with Matt Schultz just, uh, having to drop out because he just lacks the funds to, to run, I think we have a major problem with our elections. So again, I want to say I'm supporting ballot measure number 1.

Thank you for your testimony, Tim.

We will go at ease again until we have another caller or constituent who comes in.

Welcome back. We have another testifier online, Desiree Terry. If you can hear me, please proceed with your testimony.

Okay, um, I'm calling to oppose the ballot measure. I, I am disappointed that this only limits everyday Alaskans. It does not limit a wealthy campaign, a campaigner or a candidate from putting as much money as he wants to in his campaign. It also limits, you know, the grassroots campaign that doesn't have the connections that an incumbent would have. And then the other thing that I see that's an issue with it is that the independent.

All it will do is build a dam for everyday Alaskans, and the independent PACs will just collect more money. It'll just be a workaround. So I oppose the ballot measure. Desiree, thank you for calling in and for sharing your testimony today. We will go at ease again until we have our next caller.

Hello, we are back online with another caller. Shirley, if you can hear me, would you please identify yourself and proceed with your testimony?

This is Shirley Evans from Homer, Alaska, and I'm calling in support of Proposition 1. I strongly believe in reducing the amount of outside money that can come in to influence our own local politics. Our own local leadership. And I feel like that is a negative influence and diminishes my own right to have a voice in not just the national political spectrum, but also at my local level.

And I just want to say that. And to say that I'm disappointed that people would think that it would be positive to have people be able to contribute large amounts of money because that really diminishes my impact on what happens in my community and state and at the national level. So, thank you for listening. Thank you, Shirley, for your testimony. We will go at ease until we have our next caller.

Good morning. We are back with another caller. Mako, if you could identify yourself please and give us your testimony.

Yeah, my name's Mako Haggerty, and I'm speaking on behalf of myself. I'm, you know, And, uh, as private citizen, I, um, I'm in favor of Ballot Measure 1. I'm in, I'm in favor of limits on, um, on campaign, uh, finance and funding. So, um, um, by reducing or by eliminating the limits on campaign contributions, we've opened ourselves up for outside interference with our elections. So I'm in favor of Ballot Measure 1.

Thank you, Marco, for your testimony.

We will go at ease until our next caller.

Good morning. We are back with another testifier, David Leslie. If you can hear me, if you could identify yourself and please proceed with your testimony. Yes, thank you. My name is David Leslie.

I live here in Fairbanks. I'm calling in today in support of Ballot Measure 1. I think it's really important that we even the playing field within reason as much as possible to ensure elections are not taken over by the wealthy and rich and mega-powerful. Common sense restrictions allow everyone's voices to be heard, and by not having any restrictions, we are weakening our democracy and weakening the voice of people who do not have vast amounts of money. So again, I'm in support of Ballot Measure 1, and I thank you for allowing me to call in this morning.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Leslie, for your testimony. We will go back at ease.

Hello, we have another caller. Amy, if you would identify yourself, please proceed with your testimony. Yes, hello, this is Amy Christensen. I'm a registered nurse in Homer, Alaska.

Do you need my address? What do you need? No, you're good, Amy. Just please proceed with your testimony. Well, I'm, I'm definitely for Ballot Measure 1.

It's worded very strange. It took me a while to figure it out, but I'm totally against unlimited campaign donations from corporations and oil companies and such forth. So I am for Ballot Measure 1. Um, because I'm so against the trollers, the, the, the people who are giving thousands and thousands of dollars compared to my little amount. So I am all for Ballot Measure 1.

Thank you for your testimony, Amy.

We will go at ease.

Good morning. We have another testifier, Kelly, if you could identify yourself. Please, and please proceed with your testimony.

Yes, this is Kelly Nyberg with the Valley Republican Women's in Moxilla, Alaska, and I just want everyone to know to vote no on this measure. It caps direct citizen support. It fails to stop powerful outside groups. It makes it harder to challenge, to complete, can protect incumbents and insiders. It pushes money into less transparent spending, and we're seeing this across the board.

We see several candidates that are taking outside money, big donors, and this is not a good thing. It just opens that door. So vote no on this ballot measure.

Kelly, thank you for your testimony.

I would say the other thing that, uh Good morning. We are back with another testifier. Patricia, if you could identify yourself please and share your testimony. My name is Patricia Boutin, Kenai. Uh, I am opposed to Ballot Measure 1.

While the measure is presented as campaign finance reform, it places new limits on political participation without addressing the real problems facing Alaska's elections. Campaign contributions are a form of political speech and association. Ballot Measure 1 would once again restrict how much individuals, political parties, and organizations can contribute to candidates for state and local office. Supporters argue that these limits reduce the influence of money, but history shows that contribution limits often shift money into independent expenditure groups and outside organizations that are less accountable to voters. Instead of reducing outside influence, this measure will actually increase it.

So for those reasons, I am totally opposed. If it were up to me, I would get rid of all outside money and only have local voters supporting our candidates. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony, Patricia. We'll go at ease.

Good morning. We have James Dryden on the line. James, if you would identify yourself and please proceed with your testimony.

Thank you. Um, I was calling to, um, in support of Ballot Measure 1, which I understand restores campaign limits. To the, uh, to the position it was before 2021. Um, I wrote a letter to the Anchorage Daily News, and let me read that. The August 18th primary ballot includes ballot measure number 1, limiting campaign contributions.

This is the final appearance of this initiative. It restores the Alaskan structure of limiting campaign contributions as passed by 73% of the voters in 2006. It raises the dollar amounts to conform to a 2021 court decision. Opponents of this argue that throttles free speech. Yes, it throttles the free speech of those who would use their wealth to drown out speech of others.

It nudges us away from government by the few.

That is something we should all want, except for those privileged few.

And that's all I have. James, thank you for your testimony today. We will go at ease.

Good morning, Susan. You are next in the queue to testify. If you would like to identify yourself and please proceed with your testimony. Thank you.

Please state your full name and then share your testimony with us.

Susan M. Cushing from Homer, Alaska. And I am all for ballot measure number 1 against corporations giving unlimited amounts of money to campaigns.

Thank you. Great, thank you very much for your testimony. Next we have Bob Shavelson. Bob, if you would identify yourself and please proceed with your testimony. Hi, thank you very much.

My name is Bob Shavelson. I apologize for the noise, I'm on the boat right now. But I firmly support Ballot Measure 1. I think that money is a cancer in our democracy, and I strongly disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1976, Huston v. Bellay, that basically equated money with speech. I think when we equate money with speech, we basically say that one dollar, one vote, instead of one person, one vote.

And Alaska is a small state. It can easily be influenced by a lot of outside money. I think it's incredibly important that we restrict that money and control it. So that's my testimony. Thank you so much for taking it.

Thank you, Bob, for calling in.

We will go at ease.

Good morning, Meg. You are next in the queue to testify. If you would like to identify yourself and share your testimony, please. Yes, thank you. My name is Meg Mitchell.

I am a resident of Homer, Alaska. I'm a longtime resident of the state of Alaska, and I am, um, happy to speak to you today about my belief that it's incredibly important to limit campaign funds that come into our candidates from outside entities. I think we need to limit campaign funds from corporations, and I think we need to bring our elections back some integrity. It includes not getting outside funding. That can be corruption for our campaigns in our state.

And I think I'll leave it at that. Thank you for your testimony, Meg.

Good morning, Sue. You are next in line to testify. If you would please identify your full name and proceed with your testimony. Thank you. My full name is Sue Christianson, and I am absolutely against giving unlimited amounts to campaigns because it's usually corporations and the common Alaskan, um, their vote gets canceled out by big money.

So I am all for Ballot Measure 1, and I am against especially corporations giving unlimited amounts to campaigns. Please give the people a voice. That's it. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

We will go at ease.

Good morning. We are back on line and we have here in the room to testify Representative Andrew Gray. Representative, if you would come to the table and identify yourself and please give us your testimony. Thank you, Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom, Director Beecher, and Chief of Staff Tatiana Robbins. My name is Andrew Gray, and I represent the Umat District in the Alaska State House, and I am testifying in support of Ballot Measure 1.

When we have unlimited donations, we have unlimited influence. With that unlimited influence, we have potentially representatives who are no longer representing the best interests of their constituents, but representing the large donations that they have received. I therefore support caps on those. One specific example that I would offer is that if we had IT companies, AI companies, social media companies, and you know, what we've seen is that not necessarily the companies themselves making donations, but employees of those companies making large, sometimes 6-figure donations to candidates. There cannot be the assumption that if those folks are elected, that when they do legislation regarding restrictions on social media or AI, that they're not going to be influenced by six-figure donations that they received regarding that type of restriction or regulation.

If we want our elected representatives to represent the people, the constituents. They should not be burdened by these enormous donations coming from outside of Alaska that will inevitably protect the industry from which those, those donations are coming and not the Alaskan people themselves. Please vote yes. Thank you for allowing me to testify. Thank you for your testimony.

Next up in person, we have Representative Elise Galvin. If you would like to come to the table and identify yourself for the record and please proceed.

Thank you, Lieutenant Governor, and thank you to Director Beecher and to the Chief of Staff Tatiana. I'm so grateful to all of you for being here and allowing an opportunity for public input. I am speaking on behalf of myself, and I want to speak in support of this initiative. Having run in large elections in the past, I can tell you that what I hear from so many Alaskans is that they don't want to see the noise and the craziness that comes with so much money in elections.. And I know that in the past we did have some guardrails around elections, and I know that there's been some lawsuits, local and also federal ones, wherein people are trying to find that right balance.

How do we make sure we can have funding in elections, but the right amount so that it's not too much influence by someone who may have a lot of money or an entity that may have a lot of money And so I appreciate that this helps put in some guardrails that I believe, given the previous lawsuits all the way up to the Supreme Court, this, um, I believe is the right number, um, in terms of a guardrail for individual donations. And, um, I think that that's helpful. Um, and I also wanted to, uh, share that, um, as much as we can have transparency in where the money is coming from, I think that's also very important for our elections to be truly democratic. And so— and that is also part of this initiative. So I very much support that as well.

So it's two things. One, it's guardrails for how many dollars get put into, by one entity, an election. And then secondly, that there be more transparency so that all of the public knows where the money is coming from. It's not saying that they can't put it in. It's just saying let's make sure we all have our eyes wide open as we make a vote as to how that information got spread so, so much to the voting public.

So for me, it's just very simple. I think that Alaskans are looking for this. I'm grateful that it's on the ballot. And I think that I'm not sure if you are holding this because you want to know how individuals feel or whether or not there's some issue about it being on the ballot. But to me, all of those signatures were brought together from Alaskans with work.

I was as an individual part of that work. So I got to hear all of the stories of how many Alaskans absolutely are looking for ways to just get some guardrails so that it's not anybody can come in and just put in as much as they want and also not disclose it like All of that is really important. So I thank you for having this hearing, and I hope that we see Alaska moving to a direction where we feel strongly that we support and trust our election system. And I think this is one step toward that. Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Galvin, for your testimony. I will share just for the public and everybody that's listening, there is a statute that requires us to have these hearings, and that's why we're doing them. We will also be having another hearing on August 5th in this room, and obviously people will be able to call in from around the state at that time. So we do not have anyone left online, and I believe we've heard everybody in the room that wishes to testify. So with that, we're going to go ahead and close this, uh, hearing at 11:01 AM on Monday, July 27th.

Thank you.