Alaska Legislature: MISC-20260805-0900 - Ballot Measure 1 Hearing

Good morning. This is Lieutenant Governor Nancy Dahlstrom, and with me today is Carol Beecher, Director of the Division of Elections, my Chief of Staff Tatiana Robbins, and the Initiative Coordinator April Simpson. I would like to call this public hearing to order. Today is Wednesday, August 5th, 2026. The purpose of this hearing is to hear from the primary sponsor and the group opposing Citizen Initiative 23, RCF2.

This public hearing is required under a law passed by the Alaska State Legislature in 2010. I will read the ballot summary now. An act limiting contributions to campaigns. This act would change the amount of money that people and groups can give to state and local political campaigns. A court hearing 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 $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. 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. We will then open up 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 on the Division of Elections website. So for the testimony process today, what I would like to do is we normally have a statement of support from the sponsor of the initiative and then we have a statement of opposition. However, the sponsor is not here at the moment and has not dialed in.

We have these two testimonies before we open to public testimony. So I would like to start with the statement of opposition. And with us today online is former Representative Ben Carpenter calling in. And Ben, I would like to turn the time over to you. Good morning.

Good morning, Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom. Can you hear me? I sure can. Thank you. Perfect.

And I must apologize for the video. I look like an angel. I'm glowing so brightly, at least is what I'm seeing. I must apologize for that. No, it looks great.

And I especially love your Alaska map with our America design on the back. So thanks for sharing that with us. Thank you, Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom, and fellow Alaskans. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this subject today. My name is Ben Carpenter, and I served in the Alaska Legislature for 6 years, which means that I have some personal experience with campaign finance.

I oppose this ballot measure because it does not take money out of politics, which I think we could agree is an admirable goal. It changes where the money goes and weakens transparency in the process. Here's the central issue: this initiative reduces the amount people can give directly to candidates and other political organizations while leaving unlimited contributions available to groups that make only independent expenditures. And I'll explain more about that in just a minute. This measure will likely be interpreted by voters as a way to protect ordinary Alaskans from wealthy donors.

But the current campaign finance records do not support that argument. Almost every individual donor already gives less than the proposed limit. In fact, about 98% of individual donors would not be affected at all. Only a very small number of donors would have any contribution reduced. So this is not really a measure aimed at the average Alaskan donor.

The average Alaskan donor is already below the cap. Even though only a small amount of donors would be affected, the amount of money available directly to candidates would fall sharply. And why is that? Well, that's because the larger individual contributions by a smaller number of Alaskans would be reduced. Well, that might sound appealing at first, but let me explain what is really happening.

This measure does not remove wealthy influence from the elections. It limits one kind of wealthy influence while protecting another. It limits money given directly to candidates, but it leaves unlimited the money given to independent expenditure groups. That's not the same thing as reducing political spending. It's just shifting political spending into a different structure.

When someone gives directly to a candidate, that relationship is clear. It's reported and it's clear. The public can see who gave the money, how much they gave, which candidate received it. The candidate then controls the campaign. It controls and approves the message.

The, the candidate can be questioned about the donors. It can be questioned, um, about the advertisements, about the decisions made by the campaign. That doesn't mean the system is perfect, but the chain of responsibility is easy for the voter and easy for the public to follow. A donor gives to the candidate, the candidate uses the money, the candidate answers to the voters. Independent expenditures create more distance in that process.

A donor gives to an organization, that organization decides which election to enter, It decides which candidate to support or oppose. It decides the message. It decides, uh, when to spend the money and who should receive it. The candidate may benefit from the spending, but the candidate does not control it. The candidate can also deny responsibility for the message.

This initiative reduces the transparency of where the money is being spent in the elections. Both systems require reports, but filing reports does not make the two systems equally transparent. Direct contributions show a simple relationship between the donor and the candidate. The independent expenditures place an organization between the donor and the political message. That makes it harder for voters to understand who is really shaping the message, and I think we've all recognized this in our, in our previous elections.

There's also a major difference in who provides the money. Direct candidate giving comes from thousands of individual donors. Independent expenditure funding comes from a much, much smaller group— the top donors to candidates providing a significant amount of money. But most direct giving still comes from people outside the very top group. Independent expenditure funding is much more concentrated.

A handful of donors provide nearly all of it. The top 5 independent expenditure donors provide more than 9 out of every $10 going into those groups. That's not broad participation, that is concentrated financial influence. And most of those dollars are coming from outside of Alaska. And this should be no shock to anybody who's paying attention.

By number, many independent donors, uh, independent expenditure donors are Alaskans. But by dollar amount, the picture is very different. Roughly 6 out of every 7 independent expenditure dollars come from outside of Alaska. So we should be clear about who benefits from this initiative. The language may be neutral on paper.

It applies the same rules to Alaska and to outside organizations. But the practical benefit goes to the donors already using the unlimited independent expenditure system. And today, those donors are mostly large organizations from outside of Alaska. This is why I reject the idea that this is a fight between wealthy Alaskans and ordinary Alaskans. It is not.

A wealthy Alaskan who gives directly to a candidate is participating in a visible system. The donor's name, the amount is disclosed. The candidate receiving the money is known. The candidate is responsible for the campaign. Under this measure, the contribution would be limited.

But the wealthy outside interests could still give millions of dollars to an independent expenditure group, and that group could then spend the money to help elect or defeat Alaska candidates. It's— it will in this next election buy television ads. It could pay for mail, digital advertising, polling, research, and voter outreach. And we recognize this in the top 3 contributors message that is— encompasses these messages. Will know who— where this money is coming from.

It will shape the tone of our election.

And it could do all of that without the candidate controlling the message. So this measure does not reduce the influence of wealth. It changes which wealthy interests have the greatest freedom to act. Wealthy Alaskans giving directly and openly would lose relative influence. Large outside interests using independent expenditure groups would gain relative influence.

That's the real effect. We also need to think about what happens next. Political money adapts to the law. So, when one path is limited and another path remains unlimited, money moves towards that unlimited path. That does not require bad intent.

It is simply incentive. To—. Created by the law that we're proposing today. A large donor reaches the direct contribution limit, and that donor can give more to— the donor reaches the limit and it can't give any more to the candidate, but it can give more to an independent expenditure group. Political consultants and organizations, they understand this immediately.

They will build more independent expenditure groups. They will raise more money through those groups. More election spending will happen outside candidate campaigns. And that means less candidate control and less candidate accountability for the messages. It also means more negative advertising.

A candidate usually has some reason to protect a reputation and maintain a relationship with voters after the election. A temporary outside group, they have no such concern. Those groups exist for one election. They spend millions of dollars and then they disappear. This is not greater accountability.

It is greater distance between the money, the message, and the voter. Supporters may say that independent expenditure groups still disclose their donors and spending, and that is true in many cases, but there's still an important difference. With a direct contribution, the public can see that a donor supported a specific candidate. With an independent expenditure group, the public may see that a donor gave to the organization, but the public may also see that the organization paid for some sort of political activity, but it's difficult to know which donor paid for which message, who made the strategic decision, whether the original money came from another organization, or who should be accountable— held accountable for the final advertisement. The reporting structure is more complicated.

The responsibility is more divided. The public has to work harder to understand who is influencing the election. This measure limits the clearer and more direct form of political participation while protecting the more indirect and more complicated form. That is the opposite of what a transparency reform should do. There's also an unresolved question about candidates using their own money.

This measure should not be understood as a way to stop wealthy candidates from financing their own campaigns. Candidate self-funding raises separate constitutional issues. A candidate spending personal money is not the same as an outside donor giving money to that candidate. The candidate is using personal resources to engage in political speech. If this law were interpreted— if this became law and it was interpreted to limit that activity, Alaska could face expensive litigation.

If it were not interpreted that way and wealthy candidates could still self-fund while outside independent expenditure groups could continue raising unlimited funding amounts, then it has done nothing for us.

It does not create a level playing field. It, it creates new uncertainty and shifts more power towards outside organizations.

So in conclusion, this measure does not take big money out of Alaskan elections. It changes the path big money takes. It limits direct contributions to candidates and other political organizations. It protects unlimited contributions to independent expenditure groups. Almost all ordinary donors are already below the proposed limits, but the new limits would sharply reduce the money available through direct and easily understood donor relationships.

At the same time, those independent expenditure groups would remain free to raise unlimited amounts of money. Those groups are funded largely by a small number of outside organizations. So this is not wealthy Alaskans versus poor Alaskans. It is a battle over who will have the most influence. It is a choice between direct, visible support for candidates and more money flowing through outside organizations.

It is a choice between a simple line of accountability and a more complicated system where responsibility is divided.

The measure does not reduce wealthy influence. It increases the relative influence of wealthy outside interests, and for those reasons, I oppose it, and I hope you do too. Thank you for this opportunity to speak on this subject. Thank you, Ben Carpenter, for your comments. Next, we will hear the statement of opposition.

And— excuse me— a statement of support from the sponsor of the initiative. I apologize about that. And if I could ask Representative Schragg to come forward, please identify yourself and state your testimony.

Thank you, Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom. Appreciate it. And good morning. Good morning. Good morning to you as well, Director Beecher and Chief of Staff Robbins.

Thank you also for your indulgence in allowing me to show up a few minutes tardy as I wrapped up another meeting in the adjacent room. As you stated, I'm here to speak in support of Ballot Measure 1. My name is Calvin Schragi, and I'm a state representative representing House District 12 here in Anchorage on the southeast side of town in the Chugach foothills, where I'm proud to have grown up and where I'm now raising a family of my own with my amazing wife Heather and my wonderful daughters Eleanor and Emmeline. My comments today will largely mirror those at the prior hearing that you had. So what does this initiative do?

I—. With that, I want to start with a little bit of background. You know, for decades, Alaska was a national leader in campaign finance integrity. In 2006, 73% of Alaskan voters confirmed these values by supporting strict contribution limits to keep big money 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.

Unfortunately, that changed 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 a candidate. Without these guardrails, wealthy individuals and special interests have an outsized impact and can 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 elections. This means that the floodgates are open for wealthy and special interests, particularly those from the lower 48 who may not share our values. 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 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 to the highest bidder. By voting yes, Alaskans are choosing to reinstate fair, reasonable, and constitutional campaign limits.

There's been lots said about this initiative over the prior months, uh, in opposition, and I will just address a couple of those comments today. There's arguments that this would limit challengers, or those running for office for the first time or against an incumbent, from being able to mount an effective campaign. It's my belief that that's incorrect. That, in my experience, those who have already been elected have proven that they're capable of serving. They have the credibility and influence to secure very large donations.

And I think we've oftentimes seen that proven out in our elections. So the argument that this would limited challenger, I do not agree with. That's not my experience. We've also heard that the courts have struck down these limits because it is wrong to limit free speech. That is also incorrect.

In fact, the courts have upheld campaign contribution limits, recognizing that the risk of corruption is a true and real danger to our democracy. And I would add that today, a candidate for state house, for state senate, or for governor can receive larger donations than if they were to run for U.S. Senate or U.S. House. Where the maximum donation they can receive is $3,500. Those limits are in place because, again, the risk of corruption is a real danger to our democracy. And finally, in the opposition statement, you'll see concerns that inflation will quickly make these limits irrelevant and too low for a candidate to be able to solicit the donations necessary to mount an effective campaign.

And I would argue that these infla— inflationary adjustments in this ballot measure are designed carefully to make sure that the limits are not changing every year where individuals have to keep track of what the limit is this year and then the next election, the next election, but instead adjust these limits every 10 years based on the inflation over that 10-year period to ensure that they do stay up to date, limiting candidates from receiving very large, potentially corrupting donations, uh, but not adjusting those limits so frequently that the landscape becomes too complicated for the average citizen wanting to be involved in a campaign, is unable to keep track of what the limit is and potentially creating issues with campaign finance compliance. So in conclusion, I'd like to emphasize that, again, this initiative addresses judicial concerns while reflecting that Alaskans have consistently demanded fair elections and representatives who answer to voters. This initiative does not favor any specific party. It simply ensures that everyone plays by the same rules. And I humbly request that Alaskans vote yes to protect our voices, Alaskan voices, that we restore Alaska's tradition of accountability and keep our elected officials focused on the people who live and work in Alaska, not on outside mega donors and special interests.

Thank you again for your time and for the opportunity to testify in support of this ballot measure. And I thank you. That's it for the time. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Schrag.

Do we have anyone in the room who would like to testify?

All right. Seeing none, we will go to the list of folks online. And what I would like to state is I'd like folks to limit their testimony to 3 minutes, please. If you're finishing a sentence or paragraph, I certainly want to be lenient and allow folks to be able to do that, but if we could self-regulate, it would be really good if we could keep it at 3 minutes. So the first person who has dialed in is Emily Kane from Juneau.

Emily, can you hear me?

Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. So please identify yourself and proceed with your testimony. Thank you.

My name is Emily Kane. I'm calling in from Juneau, and I am strongly in support of yes on Ballot Measure 1. Because of Citizens United, this is not going to be a perfect solution, but is it a very important corrective step in our politics in Alaska, and I'm voting yes on one because it really turns my stomach when I see contributors like Elon Musk putting literally millions and millions of dollars into, um, buying and currying favor. And we've seen how that rolls out. So I, I think that it's, um, important for people to understand that this is step towards correcting undue influence of outside money in our Alaskan politics.

And I urge you to join me on voting yes on Ballot Measure 1 today up until August 18th. Thank you so much for taking my testimony. Thank you, Emily. Next in the queue is Judy Elledge from Anchorage. Judy, can you hear me?

Yes, I can. Can you hear me? Yes, please identify yourself and proceed. Yes, this is Judy Elledge, and I'm representing myself today, and I am testifying against the vote no on Ballot Measure 1. And I thank you so much, Lieutenant Governor Dawson, for allowing us to have this opportunity.

But my testimony is Alaskans for better elections. What Alaskan would not want that? Campaign finance. But Alaskans would not want that. But for me and others, voters who spent the time to find out what this law really— this ballot measure is, we say no.

Once again, Mr. Kendall or one of his groups want to stop the average voter in Alaska from his or her right to give whatever they want to a candidate. I do believe the Supreme Court has ruled on this. So once again, this is going to tie up the Supreme Court for years.

But that does not sit well with Alaskans for Better Elections or groups that brought this, Mr.— an individual, Mr. Swargy. And they just have to give their comrades, the unions and special interests, more influence than you as a private citizen. If you really want equity, then why didn't you limit the same amount to unions and special interests that are carved up out in this law, the same as an individual. I truly do not understand that. I would say that I do believe though Mr. Schwaggy, uh, gets huge union support and he would benefit from that.

Every, um, person, uh, that is, uh, in the legislature registered as a Democrat that I'm aware of would benefit from this because they get huge amounts of union money. Why should unions have more influence than an individual? This ballot measure is not about preventing outside influence or equalizing the playing field. Once again, if in— what, it's $2,000 per measure, it caps individual elections. And we're talking about a cycle.

That's not every year. That means that limits a contribution to $1,000 per year. And at the same time, it allows the unions and special interests that once again are carved out in this, in laws like, in initiatives like this, $4,000 a cycle. Why? That's my question.

Now individual asking can please give what they want to a candidate. Which is their right, as political speech. But this measure seeks to limit the speech at the very same time it increases groups and unions and what they can get. This isn't equality. This is about fairness.

This is an attempt to diminish the political influence of individuals in preference to political action groups and unions. And, um, to the caller that testified before, I— it seems that All of us have billionaires that support things that we want them to support. So you might carve out and say something about Mr. Musk, but I need to investigate the billionaire from Colorado that donates to these measures from the other side. Thank you so much for allowing me to testify. Thank you.

Next in the queue is Patrick Race from Juneau. Patrick, can you hear me? Yes, can you hear me? Yes, please identify yourself and proceed.

Yeah, uh, so for the record, my name is Pat Race. I'm calling in from Juneau where I was born and raised, and, uh, I worked on the signature gathering effort for this ballot measure, and I'm an enthusiastic yes voter when it comes to reinstituting campaign contribution limits. I think these are reasonable limits and they adjust for inflation, and it makes sense to me that we should limit the amount of money in our elections. Um, as, as the opposition speaker said, um, it's an admirable goal. Uh, it was recently reported that in Alaska's gubernatorial elections, 53% of the money raised so far came from 3% of the donors.

Uh, and those are people with deep pockets, often non-residents giving millions to influence Alaska's election. And I think that what happens there is that the average person like me that can give $50 or $100, our voice gets drowned out by someone that can that can give $50,000 or $100,000. Um, this enormous amount of spending, uh, was upwards of $4.8 million, and that's just pre-primary for the Alaska gubernatorial election, uh, and it shouldn't be part of the math when Alaskans are deciding how they want to be represented. Um, I listened to the comments in opposition to the ballot measure, and some of them seemed a little convoluted and disingenuous to me because they seem to argue that the ballot measure doesn't go far enough to limit contributions. To elections.

And I agree with that. I think we should pass this ballot measure, and I think we should continue to do the difficult work of reining in spending on elections in many other ways. And so I welcome their support on other avenues of reining in election support, and I welcome support on this piece because I think that in terms of election funding, we're all kind of in this boat with several leaks, and we have an opportunity here to patch one of the bigger holes., and we should absolutely do that now. I urge you to vote yes on Ballot Measure 1 to reinstitute the cap on campaign contribution limits. And if you're interested in supporting this effort, you can learn more at campaignlimits.org.

So thank you very much for your time, and vote yes on 1. Thank you for your testimony, Pat. Next in the queue is Charmin Haley from Anchorage.

Can you hear me? Yes. Please identify yourself and proceed. Thank you. I'm Charmin Haley from Anchorage, Alaska.

I started my career as a policy analyst and researcher, first for the Republican Caucus in Washington State, then with Alaska's Legislative Research in Juneau, and finally UAA's Institute of Social and Economic Research. In retirement, and you did travel in time with my—. Charmin, Charmin, your voice is going in and out a little bit. Are you, are you close to your microphone? Okay, I will hold it closer.

Okay, thank you. I volunteer as a citizen activist on issues I care about, including getting the undue influence of big money out of our elections. I work with Alaska Move to Amend, Citizens Against Money in Politics, American Promise, and ordinary citizens and politicians of all stripes that care about this issue. I agree with all my fellow citizens who have already testified in support of Ballot Measure 1. I would like to focus my remarks on countering the arguments I have heard against campaign finance limits.

The main argument I have heard from the minority legislators that I've talked to who voted against this bill, they argue, as did Ben Carpenter, um, if we limit contributions directly to candidates, the big money will just be rechanneled through independent expenditure groups, which the Supreme Court has said we can't limit. I agree that independent expenditures and outside big money are a large part of the problem, but I offer 4 reasons why we still want Ballot Measure 1 now. First, we all know, and the research affirms, that major donors get more audience with quote-unquote their politicians. And while most politicians will assert it doesn't drive their votes, We all know, and the research confirms, that consciously or unconsciously, more audience means more influence. The policies adopted tend to favor the rich, especially at the national level, but average citizens have a constitutional right to equal protection and equal representation.

Limits on campaign donations help to level the playing field, and while independent expenditures are as yet unlimited, they're also a step removed from the candidates, creating a buffer between the donors and the candidates, mitigating to some degree this undue influence. Second, under Alaska law as enacted in 2020, contributions over $2,000 to independent expenditure groups must be reported to the Alaska Public Offices Commission. Including the true sources of such funds. Furthermore, political communications in candidate elections paid for by independent expenditure groups with majority outside funding must include a statement, quote, "A majority of contributions to whatever the entity's name is came from outside the state of Alaska." That Public Offices Commission database is publicly searchable. So in Alaska, we already have a relatively high degree of transparency for independent expenditures.

Third, the ballot—. This ballot measure reflects the will of Alaskans. Time and again, we have expressed our support for strong campaign finance laws. The 2006 ballot initiative that reduced the limit from $1,000 back to $500 passed with 73% approval statewide. Data in the state archives show that it passed by a wide margin in every single district of our state.

We're saying that we want the law to be strict. It protects our balance of power as voters and constituents. It limits the disproportionate influence and corrupting power of big money in our elections.

Um, fourth, this ballot measure will have minimal impact on our Alaska legislative candidates. Analysis of APOC data for the 2022 election cycle, which was after the court decision struck down Alaska's campaign finance law, shows that contributions to House and Senate candidates totaled $2.8 million. Contributions that were in excess of the proposed limits were less than 5% of the total for Senate candidates and less than 3% for House candidates. Of these excess contributions, 31% were from outside the state. In the governor's race, uh, well, we know from recent campaign publications.

That's a bigger problem in the governor's race.

Um, Charmin, could I ask you to wrap up please? It's been over 4 minutes.

Uh, yes, I can. Thank you. Finally, we can walk on two legs. We can act campaign finance limits in Alaska now and simultaneously pursue a federal constitutional constitutional amendment to restore our full authority to set reasonable limits on independent expenditures and outside contributions. In 2020, polling showed that 71% of Alaska's Alaskans would support a U.S. constitutional amendment restoring our full authority to set our own limits on political spending in elections, including independent expenditures.

The support is strong across both political parties and independents. We just need to reach our elected representatives in Juneau and in D.C. to get more action on the constitutional amendment strategy. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Charmin, for your testimony. Next in the queue is Laura Stats from Juneau.

Laura, can you hear me?

Yes, I can. Can you hear me? Yes, please identify yourself and proceed with your testimony. Okay, thank you, Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom. My name is Laura Stat.

I'm from Juneau, Alaska, and, um, my testimony is that I am for yes on Ballot Measure 1. My testimony will be short. This is a common sense issue. We need to reestablish limits that are based on a vote that took place in 2006, where over 70% of Alaskans voted in favor of it. The gap between the rich and the poor in this nation makes it imperative that Ballot Measure 1 passes.

Whether a candidate wins a campaign should not be based on how much money they ABC. It should be based on their moral integrity, their commitment to the Constitution, and their integrity. Today, the top 1% of households in the U.S. are able to easily support a candidate with lavish funds while the common citizen has to budget carefully to support the candidate they would like to win. This has led to decreased enthusiasm for citizens to be involved in voting. This ballot measure will restore what is fair and acceptable regarding campaign financing.

It is widely known fact that today the gap between the rich and the poor has grown. CBS News reported, uh, and I quote, the top 1% of The top 1% of households owned 31% of all U.S. wealth in the third quarter of 2005, the highest share on record since the Federal Reserve began tracking household wealth in 1989. That share has increased even as wealth growth for the rest of the population has stalled or slowed, the data shows. Collectively, the wealthiest 1% held about $55 trillion in assets in the third quarter of 2025, roughly equal to the wealth held by the bottom 90% of Americans combined, end quote. Alaska's previous limits on campaign contributions were established as I said, in 20— in, uh, 2006 by an overwhelming vote of 73% of voters.

I am for establishing limits on contributions in our political system. Thank you very much for this opportunity to share my thoughts. Thank you, Laura. Next in the queue is Jan Julian from Fairbanks. Jan, can you hear me?

I can hear you. Hi, please identify yourself and proceed with your testimony. My name is Jan Julian. I have no additional comments at this time. Calling Fairbanks.

All right, thank you, Jan. Next is Heather Arnett from Anchorage.

Heather, can you hear me? Um, hi, please identify yourself. Sure. My name is Heather Arnett. I live in Anchorage.

Um, I do support Ballot Measure 1, which reestablishes campaign contribution limits for individuals in Alaska, and I will vote yes on it. Since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the limits in 2021 as being too low and not having an inflation adjustment component, Alaska has had no campaign contribution limits individuals. We've seen very large individual contributions flowing into, into Alaska. I'm concerned about the impact the large contributions are having or can have on an elected official's decision-making process. Public officials can feel beholden to these contributors and swayed by these supporters, and elected officials are also looking ahead to reelection.

Election and thinking about funds they need for that effort as well. Um, I also appreciate that Ballot Measure 1 changes the timeframe for when campaign contributions are counted from an annual timeline to an election cycle only, allowing for annual contributions can provide an incumbent with a fundraising advantage, whereas only allowing contributions during an election cycle levels the playing field for incumbents and non-incumbents. Thank you. Thank you, Heather. Next in the queue is Karen Robinette from Wasilla.

Karen, are you with us?

Hi, this is Karen Robinette. I live up north of Wasilla, and I'm calling in to say no, I absolutely do not I wish I had heard about it before I saw a sample ballot. And I think the limits on individuals are way too low. I'm not a millionaire. I'm not a wealthy person.

But if I really care about, especially about opposing an incumbent, I may want to give more than $2,000 to help unseat an incumbent. The incumbent is already going to have the name recognition. And already has been in a position to do favors for whatever groups or lobbying groups or companies they may have wanted their services. And so they can already get support by having provided favors. They don't need to be given money by those groups to need to get the favors.

They're all sorts of other ways they can be benefited, whereas a challenger who's trying to replace them that I might want to support with my free speech and my hard-earned money doesn't have any of that as an advantage. This is a way of keeping challengers out, keeping them from overtaking incumbents. And the fact that it's allowing considerably more donations to groups, political action groups, labor unions, whatever other groups, is offensive to me as a citizen. So if there were a ballot measure against contributions from outside the state, I'd be all for it. Or if it were just trying to keep millionaires out by limiting it to $5,000 or even— or $10,000 from an individual, okay, you might even get my support then.

But telling individuals that we cannot express our preference for, especially for a challenger, by giving more than $2,000 in an election cycle is, um, is offensive to me as what I thought was a free citizen of Alaska. Thank you for hearing what I have to say. Karen, thank you for your testimony. Next is Joanne Kaur from Soldotna. Joanne, can you hear me?

Or is it Joan? Yes, yes, I can. Please proceed. Okay, I'm Joan Kaur from Soldotna, and, uh, I am not— I want to vote no on this ballot measure. Just like the lady before said, this limits the amount of money an individual can give to support a candidate on ballot measures as, well, We the People.

But PACs and lobbyist groups and unions can give unlimited amounts. And to me, this will bring millions more in dark money. It doesn't— but it don't— it doesn't represent We the People but special interest groups. And the ads we hear on the radio and wherever. They're deceptive and to me actually lies.

Voting yes on ballot measure 1 will actually increase dark money. Instead, I encourage people to vote no on 1 and to let the individuals have more support and standing versus special interest groups. And that is my opinion. Thank you. Thank you, Joan, for your testimony today.

I don't have anyone in the queue additionally waiting, and I don't have anyone else in the room who's waiting to testify, so we will go at ease until our next caller or next citizen comes in to testify. Thank you. At ease.

All right, we are back online and the time is 10 o'clock. Dialing in is Daniel O'Brien from Anchorage. Can you hear me, Daniel? Yes, I can. All right, please identify yourself and proceed with your testimony.

Hello, my name is Dan O'Brien, just representing myself as an Alaskan citizen. I would just like to call in support of Ballot Measure 1 as a way to help level the playing field between regular citizens and the ultra-wealthy in our elections. $2,000 Is a lot of money for an average Joe, but nothing to the types of folks who can drop $100,000 or even $630,000, as we've seen in this election cycle. I think the average Alaskan doesn't really have a lot of hopes of being heard when there's that much money flying around from individual donors. And frankly, I think this measure doesn't go far enough.

I would support a limit on donations by political action groups and other entities that pour money into our elections and kind of try to make things more focused on being local and grassroots and what kind of your average working Alaskan really needs. Thank you for the opportunity to provide commentary and hope you all have a good day. Thank you, Dan. Appreciate your testimony.

All right, we have no one else online and no one in the room to testify, so we will go at ease again.

All right. We are back online at 10:03. Joining us for testimony online is Theresa Obermeyer. Theresa, are you here? Yes, I am.

Good morning. Could you identify yourself and please proceed with your testimony? Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Theresa Obermeyer, T-H-E-R-E-S-A, last name Obermeyer, O-B as in boy, E-R-M-E-Y-E-R. And I'm looking at Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom.

Miss Beecher, and is that Miss Simpson? Because I called Miss Simpson on Monday to be able to do this better and she did not return my call. Should I start my 2-minute testimony? Sitting next to me is Miss Robbins, but, uh, please— yes, please. She's my chief of staff.

Please proceed with your testimony though, Teresa. Okay, great, and thank you so kindly for— Lieutenant Governor, I want to tell you, first of all, I'm very pleased that you're holding this hearing because there are 3 ballot initiatives and it's very confusing. As we know, one of them is in court, and that is Giesel et al. V. State of Alaska, uh, and Repeal Now. That is on August 25th, 2026 at 1:30.

I'm very adamant, and I want to be as respectful as I can. I'm an American and I own my court, and I find it extremely offensive that when I looked at the list for the August 25th, uh, court case, we are not allowed to go to the Alaska Supreme Court. The entire thing is online, and of course we all know that it will be recorded. But I, I've let them know, if I'm the only citizen that is sitting in that courtroom, I would like to go to my Supreme Court. Of course, I, I don't know how it's going to go.

The background of this is I tried to go to the Dan Jay court case, and I ran down there in my car and I plugged my meter, and I got up there right before it started. I was denied entry. So then when this happened, I said I couldn't understand it. I understand that the 5 justices will be sitting in their chambers and being recorded, and that is not good. Now, the main thing is let's be Americans.

Let's face each other. Let citizens hear what the oral arguments are. This is very educational and good, and I really hope that you Lieutenant Governor Dawson will make sure that this happens. I've asked, uh, Senator Diesel to make sure it happens, and the other plaintiffs in the case. Okay, now let's go on to Ballot Measure 1.

Of course I support it. It's a very good thing that there are going to be limits on how much expenditures people can have for, uh, any election, because right now it's so out of control. I mean, a few people have $275,000 or something. I, I don't even know how much. It's outrageous.

So, and this would be the only state in the United States, to my knowledge, although I haven't researched it, that would do this. So I am a vote yes. Before I hang up, I wanted to mention that I have two Facebook groups. One is Elect Alaska Attorney General, and I've had that for like a year and a half, and I have a lot of hits on it, but I think a lot of people check— it's a Facebook group. A lot of people check it and they don't become a member of it.

Then the other one I have is Alaska Permanent Fund Board Confirmation Committee. Would we confirm our Permanent Fund Board? I don't have an answer, but it is time to notice that a handful of people— I mean, it makes me laugh, it's so ridiculous. $91 Billion? Are they kidding me?

I know, and I've researched this for decades, that they are enriching their private bank accounts by investing astronomically in the stock market. But I have to apologize that I do think it's because of me, but I'm not sure. Ask them. Ask, uh, uh, what is his name? I can't think of his name.

Whatever. Jason Bruni. Ask Jason. I've known Jason for like 30 years. I'm trying to be nice about Jason.

Ask him if he's investing in the stock market. I only get the APOC filings, and I, I do truly believe, although I hope I'm wrong, that because of my posting the signatures of the past Permanent Fund board members They now put all of their money in private financial companies so you cannot find out anything about exact amounts of money. Please, let's help each other. Let's make sure— Nancy, I assume you have grandchildren. I have 6 now, and I have a loving family.

3 Of my 4 children live here, and we're very blessed that we live in such a dynamic state, but we have to make sure that our state has more accountability. It would start with an elected Attorney General. And just to explain, in order to have an elected Attorney General, I would have to make sure that I get a two-thirds vote of each of the houses of the legislature. Now, Lieutenant Governor, that is almost insurmountable. Unless you help me.

Two-thirds vote of each of the houses, that would— that I, I don't— I think it's almost impossible. But in my life, I'm gonna try. I don't know, it might happen. You know, things are— do happen when you least expect them. I think if it— of course, after it would have a two-thirds vote of each of the houses, it would then go before the citizenry.

And I do believe, if I'm correct, that they might just decide if they have a two-thirds vote of each house that they would just agree to it and we wouldn't even have it on the ballot. I don't know how that goes, but before I hang up, I did want to ask you, am I able to ask you a question? I wanted to find out if exactly after the August 18th election and that election is certified, would that— would this financial disclosure amount kick in immediately? I can't find that out, so I'm just mentioning that. I assume that, and that would be so good if that's true because it would be before the general election.

But I don't know when it's supposed to kick in. I tried to check online and I can't get there. Teresa, I don't know the answer to that, but what I can do is put forward that question to, um, the, the sponsors And if they choose to advertise about that, you know, that would be on them. But I appreciate your testimony today, and I thank you very much for that.

All right. We don't have anyone else in the room or online, so we will go at ease for a moment until we have another caller.

Good morning. We are back online. We have an online caller. Patricia Bouton from Kenai. Patricia, can you hear me?

Yes, I can. All right, please identify yourself and please proceed with your testimony. Hi, this is Patricia Bouton, uh, the Kenai area. Um, so, uh, Lieutenant Governor, thank you very much for the second session. And ladies, I oppose Ballot Measure 1.

So the measure is presented as campaign finance reform, but what it really does is place new limits on me, the individual, and my campaign donation. This ballot measure does not address the unlimited funds donated by independent expenditures and political action groups. These entities are the dark money donations, group funds without individual persons. I'm limited in my personal donation, and the dark money independent expenditures and PACs are not limited. Supporters argue that these limits reduce the influence of dark money, but history shows that contributions limits shifts the money onto the independent expenditure groups and the outside Alaska PAC organizations that are less accountable to voters.

My constitutional right to free speech is restricted by this Ballot Measure 1 by limiting my individual donation to those candidate I want to support. For these reasons, I oppose this ballot measure. And then I just had a couple comments. I, I just, I find it interesting that this bill number is 2000, or the bill number is 23 RCF2, and I'm just wondering, did it sit in the wings for all these years, or is it just— I guess I don't know how those things work, but that's, that's just kind of a side note. And then the other side note is You put out election— State of Alaska Elections put out a primary election booklet, and it didn't have any candidates in it at all.

It only had the ballot measure one. So I'm just— I'm hoping that the elections will put out for the— a booklet for the general election in November. So thank you very much for listening to my testimony. And I look forward to finding the numbers on who was opposed and who was for this ballot measure. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your testimony, Patricia. And I will tell you and anyone else that's listening is you're— you are correct. There is another book that will be coming out with all the candidates before the general election. So thank you for that question also, and thank you for your testimony.

I would like to note that it is now 11:00 a.m. and there are no remaining members of the public here in the Legislative Information Office room. There is no one online waiting to testify. So we will now conclude the public hearing. I would like to thank all those who did provide testimony today. And especially thank the Legislative Affairs Agency staff for assisting us.

All parties have spoken. This hearing on Citizen Initiative 23, RCF2, is now adjourned. Thank you.

We were talking about these earlier.

It's interesting how many of them, it's the husbands contacting us and they're really mad because their wife who then, you know, has been the one that's been identified.

Yeah. But, you know, the bottom line is, is we're doing you a favor. You have inconsistent information out there, you're going to want to do something about that. I was going to say, how much stuff did you bring with you? So those are donations for the Correctional Ministry auction.

Oh, very nice. That they do every year. I always try to donate, and it's usually the, um, there's a few retired COs that go and.