Compare versions

--- version:SB 241
+++ version:(document, no version)
@@ -1,28 +1,83 @@
-SB0241A -1- SB 241
- New Text Underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED]
+To: Interested Parties
+From: Lake Research Partners and the American Economic Liberties Project
+Re: Nationwide Likely Voter Survey Shows Overwhelming Support for Banning Junk Fees
+Date:  February 22nd, 2024
+On behalf of the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP), Lake Research Partners  designed and
+administered this online nationwide survey, which reached 600 likely 2024 voters, as well as oversamples
+(n=100 each) in Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Virginia . The survey was conducted February 5th – 14th,
+2023. The margin of error for the base sample is +/-4% and larger for subgroups.
+Overwhelming Support for Legislation to Make Junk Fees Illegal
+• Over three-quarters (79%) of voters nationwide support state legislation that would make it illegal
+for businesses to charge junk fees, the deceptive ly hidden  fees tacked onto the end of
+transactions for goods and services . Not only is support for legislation banning junk fees
+remarkably broad, crossing every demographic, regional, and attitudinal divide in the data, but
+this is also a rare issue that unites Americans across partisan lines, attracting upwards of three-
+quarters of Democrats (80%), independents (80%), and Republicans (78%).  In addition, support
+for this legislation is unusually intense, with more than two-thirds (68%) of voters reporting they
+would support it strongly.
 
-34-LS1389\A
+79
+17
+4
+68
+11
+Support Oppose Undecided
+Would you support or oppose state legislation that would make it
+illegal to charge additional fine-print/hidden mandatory fees for
+goods and services, or are you undecided?
+80
+16 4
+69
+11
+Support Oppose Undecided
+Among Democrats
+80
+13 7
+62
+8
+Support Oppose Undecided
+Among Independents
+78
+19
+3
+69
+13
+Support Oppose Undecided
+Among Republicans
+LRP AELP Junk Fee Survey Memo 2
 
- SENATE BILL NO. 241
+o This proposal garners support from commanding majorities across racial and ethnic lines,
+including white (80%), Black (75%), and Latino/a (71%) voters.
 
-IN THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
+o Notably, small business owners and their households are also extremely supportive of
+this legislation with 78% in support (67% strong support).
 
-THIRTY-FOURTH LEGISLATURE - SECOND SESSION
+• This legislation could also serve as a central criterion for voters’ decision -making come election
+time. A considerable 83% of voters would be more likely to vote for their State Senator or
+Representative if they voted for junk fee legislation with about half saying they would be much
+more likely.
 
-BY SENATOR KAWASAKI
+o Moreover, banning junk fees could serve as a turnout mechanism, as 78% of voters would
+be more likely to turn out to vote in a local State Senator or State Representative election
+if they knew that elected official would soon be voting on junk fee legislation, with 46%
+saying they would be much more likely to turn out.
 
-Introduced:  2/11/26
-Referred: Judiciary, Labor & Commerce
+• Voters already have familiarity with the term “junk fees .” Other language that is particularly
+strong includes calling these fees out as mandatory, deceptive, and price-gouging.  The top testing
+labels for these deceptive fees include “Junk fees” (31%), “Price gouging” (28%), “Processing fees”
+(28%), “Fine print fees” (21%), and “Greed fees” (19%). When asked which labels most negatively
+describe these fees, voters favor “Price gouging” (28%), “Junk fees” (26%), and “Greed fees” (23%)
+top the list.
+While Americans across the country are worried about the economy and affording basic necessities,
+tackling deceptive, hidden junk fees is an incredibly important issue that voters want their elected
+officials to put an end to. California has already approved state legislation to ban junk fees, and more
+than a dozen others are actively considering legislation this year. The data from this survey strongly
+affirms these efforts –voters across all parts of the country, regardless of race, party identification,
+education level, and gender strongly support action to end junk fees and see this fight as a core value
+that will impact who they vote for and whether they turn out to vote in local elections. Banning junk
+fees effectively ties anti-corporate sentiment and mistrust to a single easily identifiable issue that is a
+game changer in the fight for helping people afford basic goods and services. This legislation is a clear
+priority for the American electorate and successfully delivering on this issue is a surefire way to garner
+support.
 
-A BILL
-
-FOR AN ACT ENTITLED
-
-"An Act relating to unfair trade practices and consumer protection; relating to fees 1
-charged to consumers; and providing for an effective date." 2
-BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA: 3
-   * Section 1. AS 45.50.471(b) is amended by adding a new paragraph to read: 4
-(58)  advertising, displaying, or offering a price for goods or services to 5
-a consumer that does not include all mandatory fees or charges, other than taxes 6
-imposed by a government entity. 7
-   * Sec. 2. This Act takes effect July 1, 2026. 8
+* * * * *