Alaska lawmakers near final vote on bill to limit state campaign donations
The Alaska and American flags fly in front of the Alaska State Capitol on Tuesday, April 22, 2025. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
The Alaska Legislature is nearing a final vote on a bill that would limit state politicians' ability to accept campaign donations.
On Wednesday, the Senate Finance Committee voted without objection to advance House Bill 16 to a vote of the full Senate. That vote is expected before lawmakers adjourn their regular session on May 21.
The House passed the bill in late April, leaving only the Senate and Gov. Mike Dunleavy as the final potential barriers to enactment. The governor has not commented on the bill but has previously said that he prefers having no limits on campaign donations.
HB 16 is identical to a ballot measure slated for a statewide vote in 2026. If HB 16 becomes law, that measure would be canceled, and the 2026 elections would move forward with donation limits in place.
HB 16 proposes to limit Alaskans to $2,000 in donations per candidate in each two-year election cycle. For the governor's race, where a lieutenant governor candidate and governor candidate run together on a single ticket, the limit would be $4,000. The limit for donations from one person to a political party or group would be $5,000.
If a group wants to donate to a candidate, the limit is $4,000, or $8,000 for the governor's race.
Those limits would be adjusted for inflation every 10 years.
The new limits are required because a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2021 that the state's prior limits were unconstitutional. The Dunleavy administration declined to appeal that ruling.
On Wednesday, Sen. James Kaufman, R-Anchorage, proposed amending the bill to include higher donation limits equivalent to those in federal law.
The committee voted down that amendment, and Schrage said he prefers to keep the bill in line with the ballot measure.
Doing otherwise could run afoul of a clause of the Alaska Constitution that says the Legislature can override an upcoming ballot measure only if it enacts a law 'substantially similar' to the measure.
HB 16 is expected to move in parallel with Senate Bill 64, an elections bill moving toward a final vote in the state House, multiple lawmakers said, meaning that both bills are expected to reach final votes about the same time.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
Big changes are being proposed for a US food aid program. Here's a breakdown by the numbers
TPresident Donald Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food aid for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food aid program, by the numbers: Year: 2008 The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law took effect eliminating a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. Number: 42 million A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the county. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. Dollars: $295 billion Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion of federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come by shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come by expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. Ages: 7 and 55-64 To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents would need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. Percentages: 5% - 25% The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. Margin: 1 House Resolution 1, containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts, passed the House last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food aid and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Cybertruck Sales Are So Bad That We Gasped
There's little left for us to say that can further embarrass the Tesla Cybertruck, a vehicle that was supposed to be the culmination of Elon Musk's genius. And maybe this is what Musk's genius looks like. The luckless EV has faced eight recalls so far, and its trademark stainless steel panels, when they aren't flying off, have demonstrated that they're better at serving as a shiny canvas for spray paint than as the armor of an "apocalypse-proof" tank. But somehow, its already dire sales are now even worse than expected. In the entire first quarter of 2025, Tesla has managed to sell just 7,100 Cybertrucks in the US, according to registration data from S&P Global Mobility cited by the Wall Street Journal. It's an astounding and rapid plummet, when in the fourth quarter of 2024, Tesla sold close to double that amount, with roughly 13,000 Cybertrucks. A lot changed between those two quarters — like Musk embarking on a spectacular speedrun to destroy his and Tesla's image, mainly by leading the Trump administration's charge to gut the federal government. These actions, and Musk's personal espousing of far-right politics, sparked worldwide protests against him and his automaker. It has yet to recover, with Tesla's total sales in the US dropping nine percent in the first three months of this year. There are other factors at play, too, like the success of its Chinese competitors and its aging vehicle lineup, but the imploded brand reputation looms largest. And more than any other of its vehicles, the Cybertruck for one reason or another has embodied the public's souring sentiment on Musk, becoming prime targets for vandalism. They're also notoriously unreliable, sold for nothing less than $100,000 before cheaper $70,000 versions were desperately rolled out, and launched with a range over 150 miles shorter than what Musk promised. In all of 2024, the company sold fewer than 40,000 Cybertrucks. The most recent quarter's tally makes Musk previous boast that the automaker would sell up to half a million Cybertrucks per year even more ridiculous. Is it any wonder that buyers are staying away? So few people want to buy these things that in May Electrek reported that Tesla was sitting on an inventory worth $800 million of 10,000 unsold Cybertrucks — an embarrassment as much as it is a logistical headache. Dealerships have resorted to dumping their glut of the unorthodox pickup trucks in deserted parking lots. The pain isn't likely to stop anytime soon. Trump's tariffs, which factored into Musk's fallout with the president, will drive up the costs of car parts. The administration also plans to axe tax credits for purchasing EVs, demolishing a huge incentive for American consumers to buy from automakers like Tesla. More on Tesla: Terrifying Footage Shows Self-Driving Tesla Get Confused by the Sun, Mow Down Innocent Grandmother Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
‘We're living in the dumbest timeline' — Gov. Cox comments on SLC Sego pride flags
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — Governor Cox commented on Salt Lake City's Sego pride flags in his monthly press conference Tuesday, calling them and the Utah law that banned pride and other unofficial flags 'dumb.' Governor Cox was asked if he supported the official flags that Salt Lake City adopted in response to Utah , the law that from being displayed on government property and at public schools. Previously, Cox called H.B. 77 the . Cox allowed the law to go into effect without his signature, and he did not veto the bill because it passed with a veto-proof majority. 'I don't support [the bill]. They're dumb flags, and it was a dumb bill,' Cox said. He clarified that he was referring to the Sego pride flags in Salt Lake City. Gov. Cox's pick to head new state records office gets OK from Senate panel despite criticism In response to H.B. 77, Salt Lake City adopted pride and Juneteenth designs as official flags for the city in . These flags allow the city to circumvent the law banning pride flags and other unofficial flags because they are now official city flags. The Sego Celebration, Belonging, and Visibility flags are meant to honor Juneteenth and Black and African American residents, LGBTQIA residents, and transgender residents respectively. 'It's ridiculous. I feel bad for the Japanese Americans. I feel bad for the Polynesian Americans… I mean, who are we leaving out here?' Cox said. 'I'm sure they [Salt Lake City Council] feel great that they got around this dumb law, and they did it with dumb flags. The whole thing's dumb.' Cox offered his thoughts on what both the state and cities should do instead of squabbling over pride flags. 'We should raise the American flag, and let's unify around that. It's a great flag, represents everyone, and the legislature doesn't need to be in everybody's business all the time,' he said. 'We're living in the dumbest timeline right now, that's all I can say,' Cox concluded. RSL hoping to make a run in second half of season Utah lawmakers oppose AI regulation in Trump's 'Big, beautiful bill' 'Somebody has to stop it:' Gov. Cox defends Trump's decision to deploy troops to LA 'We're living in the dumbest timeline' — Gov. Cox comments on SLC Sego pride flags Calif. governor asks court to block Trump administration from using troops in immigration raids Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
