This is the place to talk about Alaska politics -- state, local, national. Public life in the Last Frontier has probably never been more interesting than right now -- the governor as candidate for vice president, the broad and still-evolving corruption investigation, a big election, powerful members of Congress under scrutiny, and the usual hardball Alaska politics. Come here for news, tidbits and information, and join the discussion. Keep your comments civil and on point. Avoid personal attacks. Do not use profanity. Posts that violate the Terms of Use will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned.
Erika Bolstad
Erika Bolstad covers Alaska issues, including the congressional delegation, from Washington, D.C., for McClatchy Newspapers. Before joining the bureau in 2007, she spent seven years as a reporter at the Miami Herald, where she covered politics, government and the state legislature. E-mail Erika at ebolstad@adn.com.
Sean Cockerham
Sean Cockerham writes about Alaska state politics. He spent three years based in Juneau for the ADN before joining the Tacoma News-Tribune to write about Washington state politics. He went to Iraq twice for the News Tribune, and previously wrote about Alaska government and politics for the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. E-mail Sean at scockerham@adn.com
Kyle Hopkins
Kyle Hopkins covers politics and other stories for the ADN. He covered the 2006 campaign for governor, has blogged extensively about Alaska politics, covered Anchorage city government and was a reporter based in the Mat-Su. He grew up in Southeast Alaska and previously was a reporter at the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and Anchorage Press. E-mail Kyle at khopkins@adn.com
At one point the races with Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young promised to be the highest-profile campaigns in Alaska history.
SECTION
The nation was captivated by Sarah Palin's run to the White House, and now Alaska awaits the return of their governor.
SECTION
The FBI raided state legislatures offices in Aug. 2006, and the fallout since has been epic in Alaska's political world.
Obama and the governors - 12/1/2008 7:50 pm
Palin mania in Georgia - 12/1/2008 4:07 pm
Palin on the trail (UPDATED: Video) - 12/1/2008 2:20 pm
Judge nixes Monday hearing in Stevens case - 11/28/2008 3:03 pm
Palin's gifts - 11/26/2008 4:32 pm
Stevens defense wants to see secret document filed by prosecutors - 11/26/2008 3:39 pm
The interview that won't die - 11/25/2008 2:21 pm
Hearing Monday on Stevens witness issue - 11/25/2008 2:07 pm
Palin back on the stump - 11/25/2008 12:28 pm
'Don't blame me! Blame Joe the Turkey Slaughterer' - 11/25/2008 12:18 pm
Senator for life - 11/25/2008 7:16 am
So what happened with DOJ and the Anderson letter? - 11/24/2008 7:33 pm
A Palin Thanksgiving: Thank-you notes or contempt charges? - 11/24/2008 11:15 am
Mayoral maneuvering - 11/21/2008 11:35 am
Palin talks turkey (Updated) - 11/20/2008 5:36 pm
Croatian village celebrates Begich victory - 11/20/2008 2:14 pm
Exit polling on Stevens-Begich - 11/20/2008 2:13 pm
Stevens farewell - 11/20/2008 9:22 am
Development crowd reserved with Palin, Begich - 11/19/2008 1:20 pm
Young, Murkowski and Palin on the Senate race (Updated) - 11/19/2008 12:20 pm
Stevens: 'It is apparent the election has been decided' - 11/19/2008 11:48 am
Begich on early voters and absentees: 'That's the group we worked.' - 11/18/2008 5:20 pm
Posted by Alaska_Politics
Posted: March 11, 2008 - 4:03 pm
From Sean Cockerham in Anchorage --
The "Clean Elections" initiative will be on the Aug. 26 primary election ballot.
Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell determined this afternoon that it qualifies with enough valid signatures.
The initiative would allow candidates for state political office to opt for publicly funded campaigns.
Candidates who agree to forgo most private donations -- and are able to get a minimum number of $5 donations to show they have a solid base of support -- would get a limited amount of state money to run for office, under the proposed law.
Here's the Alaskans for Clean Elections web site with more information, including the ballot language.
4 March 11, 2008 - 9:34pm | akallegro
is maybe 50 signers have actually read the fine print. The rest heard "are you for clean elections?" and signed away.
Who becomes the prevailing authority on election issues, APOC or the new "clean elections administrator"?
If anyone has read it please let me know what you understand to be the cost of administering the program.
I don't think the cost of monies given to those that participate will be much in comparison to the number of state employees we will need to hire, pay, buy health insurance, and retirement homes in Arizona for.
I am particularly intrigued by the fact that supposedly the new "clean elections administrator will be monitoring reports that come in every 2 days in the last 14 days of an election from nonparticipating candidates to ascertain if more funds can be allocated to participating candidates in the event that any one or more non participating candidates total expenses are deemed to have exceeded 90 percent of the applicable expenditure limit for a participating candidate under AS 15.14.070.
That is just one paragraph of rules out of hundreds that need to be analyzed and acted on in the course of a campaign much of it in the last 30 days.
Heres another nugget:
If, during the election year, the commission determines that there is not enough money appropriated to fully fund all participating candidates, the commission will prorate the available cash and then let participating candidates solicit and accept private contributions.
That will be fun to watch if a nonparticipant exceeds the 90% in the last 10 days and then the participating candidates have to scramble for cash. Especially if the nonparticipating candidate is an incumbent who voted for a low amount of funding or better yet vetoed it.
It would be far "cleaner" to force candidates to get the same quantity of seed money from supporters to be allowed into a campaign. Then take that cash from them to fund debates and not let them advertise at all.
If you want to know who to vote for you would have to pay attention to the debates.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 8:46am | TheSdog
and thanks for not making up numbers and engaging in allegro math.
Your last statement is critical.
The problem will never be solved as long as large portions of the electorate are not paying attention. People going into voting booths are acting more like they are buying Metallica tickets that voting with every passing year.
If you solved the "stupid" factor, the amount of money raised by a candidate would be far less of a problem.
By the way Dems, it looks like another blue state D governor, this time in Illinois, is having some issues.
And emp, please do not tell me it does not matter if it is not an Alaskan issue like you did on the other string. There is a reason Wall Street is rejoicing at the fall of the overzealous Spitzer. Anyone who gets a PFD check should feel vindicated as well.
No party has the market cornered on corruption. That includes Alaska. The patterns of donations and influence are there for all to see on any APOC report. Ivan Moore gave us a great demonstration of splitting hairs in his Brand post. Unethical behavior is not any better just because you figure out a way to make it legal.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 6:20pm | Emperor
Party Politics is your hangup, not mine. Do I care if the Governor of New York stays or resigns because of the flap over prostitutes? Not in the least. I don't care if he is a Democrat or Republican. I don't care about the governor of Illinois either, other than to point out that once again campaign fund raising being the root of the problem.
The system is broke. It was broken by Political Parties and special interest groups that have stolen representation from the people.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 6:32pm | TheSdog
It is precisely because people are hung up on this being a party issue that Spitzer is relevant. The mantra seems to be it is all an R issue.
You know me better than that. It is not a D or R issue which is exactly my point.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 7:37pm | Emperor
...but don't you think that the "yeah but, the democrats..." argument is just perpetrating the D vs R discussion? This is exactly what both parties want. As long as they can frame the discussions as D vs R, Conservative vs Liberal, Us vs Them, they can use fear of the other to continue with the status quo. This is why we must strip the power and influence that political parties (and other special interest groups) have in our elections and government.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 10:21pm | TheSdog
that lengthy discussion we had about ideas on how to fix it months ago. Do you happen to know where that is?
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 11:45pm | Emperor
...I didn't keep it and can't find it here. That's one of problems I have with ADN's choice of software for their blogs.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 7:52pm | Cartman3_16
Dude, as far as I'm concerned, your commentary is very welcome in here. It's like a breath of fresh air in a dirty smoke-filled room.
The two-party system and the big money that drives it IS the root of all that is wrong with the process.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 11:52pm | Emperor
...but don't be surprised when I write something here that makes you scratch your head and seriously consider if I've lost my mind. :)
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 11:10am | Diogenes_lamp
I have to agree with you on some of your post. The "stupid factor" is a huge problem, but so are large donations to candidates. Many people are so accustomed to commercials that it is much easier to win their votes on a 30 second burst than it would be to ever get them to tune in or attend a debate on the issues.
I'm not sure if that can ever be remedied, American has successfully been dumbed-down.
Donations on the other hand, especially large ones, have a way of holding sway over the successful candidate. This is easily documented and countless examples can be cited. Large donors and especially special interest donors almost always expect something in return and it's not just "access." They, far more often than not, have special interest legislation in mind.
Campaign finance as is, is broken and leads to corruption, plain and simple. I see it first hand and have no doubt. The FBI arrests concerning VECO money is just one of many examples of how it works.
On your other point, In national politics there are bought off politicians in both parties and corruption across the board. However, that does not change the fact that in Alaska the republican party is horribly corrupt and has indeed "cornered the market," it's as plain as the nose on your face. It might be good for you to try to pretend otherwise but it is just a deflection. The facts are, in Alaska, concerning corruption, the Ruedrich lead republicans hold the moral and ethical low ground....and that's the way it is....
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 12:21pm | TheSdog
You do not solve the "stupid" factor by limiting donations. Large donations come in both sides. And you have to ask yourself at some level will you be any better if the nitwits are not influenced. Either way, they are still nitwits and the resaoning behind their votes is flawed.
That is the biggest problem with Democracy and one the reason the founding fathers wanted us to be a Republic. That is based on the premise on having people above the influence. It may be a bad premise but we have interfered with the process in many ways with the biggest being direct election of US Senators.
You are wrong about Alaska. The trial lawyers tried to buy the votes with campaign contributions to stop malpractice reform. Sure, the MDs were on the other side and the lawyers lost.
The truth is unions and lawyers are not propping up the Begichs, Berkowitzs, Garas and other Ds and not getting a return on their investment.
The same game is being played on both sides across the country. You do yourself a disservice if you do not acknowledge that. It is not as "plain" as you think and nothing is ever as black and white as you seem to think things are.
Clinton fired US attornies when he came into office like other presidents. Bush did not do that and was widely attacked when he fired a handful later. Ask yourself why presidents would do that what effect it might have on decisions on what to pursue.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 1:05pm | Diogenes_lamp
You are making my point about large donations. You seem to think that you are arguing your case against another partisan. It doesn't matter who is doing the donating, democrats or republicans, doctors or lawyers, the fact is they are not giving this money for free. They are in essence BUYING a bill or law that benefits their own special interests and are not worried about the merit of the issue.
The founding fathers would turn over in their graves, if they knew that money could by laws and that corporations would be considered equal to people. Money has perverted the system. It's simple Dog, I understand why you want the status quo. The same claim you make about lawyers is true with your profession...big money buys you bills.
What is so wrong with leveling the playing field? Are you afraid that your special interest legislation would actually have to have merit to advance to law? Are you afraid that your favorite candidate would actually have to debate their opponent, rather than just fill the airwaves with sound bites?
Really Dog, you have to be smarter than that. You want the status quo because it benefits you and your industry. You don't want to see independents elected, even though you have professed a 3rd party need many times. You are full of double-talk, as has been suggested many times by various people on this blog. Come on, defend your position on how Big money, helps Alaskans and is good for the broken system. Let's keep in local to Alaska...I'm all ears
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 3:05pm | TheSdog
Diogenes, MDs are lousy at playing the political game. As a matter of political giving, we are at the bottom of the totem poll. The rotten thing is the AMA which is the only organization with any influence huts us more than it helps us. A typical lawyer gives about 200x as much money to politicians as a doctor in the most recent survey I saw done on the subject. You want a shocker, just look at how much money the lawyers have dropped on the Ds in the presidential race. It dwarfs any other industry giving by a long way. There is no comparison at despite your uninformed rhetoric about it all being the same.
Moving beyond campaigns a little, all lobbying is not bad. If you are going to make a decision regarding health insurance for example it is not a bad idea to talk to doctors, hospitals, etc. They have interests, often conflicting I might add, but they are also the people who know the business. It is also not a bad idea to listen while on the campaign trail.
The people do not get that. If you are looking at oil and gas issues you need to talk to the people in the business. in the end, you need to be smart enough to recognize the difference from what makes sense and what is the game playing. Still, going in without any input is much more problematic.
It is no different when a pharma rep comes in to my office. Many of them have been brainwashed and sound like used car salesman. It is not unusual for me to tell them they are full of bravo sierra but I also tend to be up on the literature very well in my field. every once and a while I will actually request study info from a company that has not been in a journal I typically read. There is an informational role as long as you keep your feet grounded.
You are not going to save the govt any money by using "clean elections." I can hardly wait for you to tell me big oil screwed us out of money with PPT. PPT collected more money than ELF. It was also higher than what the bribers wanted. It is hardly a good thing to now be the highest taxing oil state in the world. You will never get a free market capitalist like me to believe a tax burden as high as we have now is a good thing.
There is one concern with a "level" playing field. It will never be truly "level." Allegro's post makes some great points on that. It goes beyond campaigns as well into lobbyists. The things that happened in room 604 were against present law and now amount of "clean election" law would have prevented that.
Publicly funded campaigns also have the potential to be a dangerous slippery slope where the people in the government itself are in control of the purse strings. This is one step closer to a government that can actually function independent of the people. The idea that people cannot spend there money to support a candidate is also one step towards less freedom.
And none of it solves the "stupid" factor which is 100x more important.
It is becoming clear that it is time to go dig up the Dog manifesto on how to clean up the system. It was also not perfect and in need of modification but better than this nonsensical crap like this initiative which gets us nowhere close to where everyone wants to be.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 4:50pm | Cartman3_16
A true "free-market capitalist" would understand the forces at work that determine the value of a given product or commodity -- in this case, oil. If the seller places too high a price on a product, no one will buy it. Finding the happy medium -- where buyers are willing to pay a given price and sellers make enough profit to make the sale worthwhile -- is what the marketplace determines.
Your mostly simple analysis notwithstanding, oil companies are happily paying more elsewhere than they pay here to do business. In the Niger Delta, for example, one of the industry biggies recently offered something like an 85 percent revenue share to government for development rights but lost the job to a company that bid 90 percent. That would be willfully, without a gun being held to anyone's head.
There is immense money to be made from oil development. Industry knows that. They didn't get to be huge and wildly profitable by being chumps. If they can get the product on the cheap, as they have here for decades, they're going to grab all they can and fight kicking and screaming to keep the cushy terms in place.
Which reminds of one more thing a free-market capitalist would understand -- the difference between genuine free markets and a market manipulated by oligopolistic control. Only an industry apologist or someone unfamiliar with basic economics would claim that the oil industry in Alaska operates in a genuinely competitive free market. If you'd like to educate yourself on some of these fundamentals of economics, check out http://economics.about.com/cs/econometrics/l/blglossary.htm
Other than that, good posts and a good exchange between you and Dio. I especially like the business about the "stupid factor." No denying that's a huge and possibly insurmountable obstacle to good responsive democracy.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 6:07pm | TheSdog
The most recent study done on the matter shows we have the highest tax burden in the world after the recent increase. It is way off the charts in the US.
The Dems in CA are trying to change that. It is interesting tax happy CA has only the 5th highest taxes on oil in the US right now. Incidently, this article hits on many of the political issues between the parties in CA right now.
On to the rest of it.
Oligopolies and monopolies are possible consequences of free markets. In a given industry or market they can actually be a good thing. It is usually industries or markets that are expensive to be involved with or small markets. It is you who fail to grasp reality.
Oil, due to the high cost of production, actually fits the bill. A small company would have a rough time getting involved in many of these projects. It is also inherently unfair in a free market to ask the big company to make it easier for the little guy. The only thing you should enforce as a govt is if they purposefully use business practices to crush the little guy. Did that happen with TAPS tariffs? Probably, but you could make arguments that it is not the case.
Right now, with oil pushing $110 a barrel it is easy to pick them apart. The situation could change drastically if the price falls. It could make oil production less lucrative and the first places to go will be the costliest. It would take new calculations at a lower price on the taxes with the progressivity but we could be on the outside looking in if we are still the highest tax location. Other factors may apply.
Incidentally, if profit margins fall that is when companies tend to cut corners. People can argue all they want that they already cut corners but the pressure can increase with narrower margins. I would lay money on the fact that the reuse of needle case in Vegas was a cut corner. It never excuses the behavior but a realist understands the risks of malfeisance go up proportionally with the cost of doing business.
Now, go back to playing with the toy you found in your Cheerios this morning. The operation of it should be appropriate for the level of understanding of things you typically demonstrate.
That is a bit harsher than usual but in your case it is clearly deserved.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 7:33pm | Cartman3_16
You saying it's wrong doesn't make it so.
Stick to medicine, doc. Economics is definitely not your strong suit.
No shame in that, though. It's not an easy thing for everyone to grasp.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 5:20pm | Diogenes_lamp
I did say let's keep it local. First off, doctors give quite a bit of donations in Alaska politics. If you count the individual doctors, the PACs and such they rate very high. Their donations tend to be on the upper end of the scale and are quite substantial.
I could have written your response to me because it's such a typical, run of the mill, republican response. Why? Because the current system benefits their own special interest, keeping them in power.
The oil industry was buying Alaska politicians long before room 604, and have been getting special interest legislation by the arm loads, for decades. Not just them but other special interests too.
There may be nothing wrong with lobbyists having a say. The problem is, in Juneau, they have almost all the say. When special interests buy their politician through large donations, the lobbyist soon shows up and has additional clout. If he wants to argue the merit of an idea that is one thing, but that is seldom the case. In reality, these guys and the people that hire them write much of the legislation. Special interest money keeps the politician in power and the lobbyist and their employers then have an official lackey to do their bidding.
It's not the way you learned it in government class. I can tell you I know this first hand. Sdog, the system is broken..no amount of your bloviating is going to change that. No amount of pretending that the status quo is working just find is going to change the facts.
Clean Elections, does level the playing field. It does bring back trust in government. It also allows, status quo supporters to do it the same old way, if they want.
So dog, you just tow that party line and keep on sticking your head in the sand. They didn't need your signature to get this on the ballot. They won't need your vote to make this law. Yes, you are the epitome of what is wrong with the republican party. (Denial, denial, denial) All the corruptions arrests, indictments and convictions..haven't sunk in yet. The "stupid factor" comes in to play once more, if we are pretending that the system is working for Alaskans currently.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 5:30pm | TheSdog
The doctors in this state do not have that much influence. The malpractice reform breakthrough was huge. Lawyers do have a lot of influence in Alaska and nationally. No surprise since so many lawyers on both sides of the aisle are lawyers.
It comes down to the individual when the lobbyist approaches. Now, you could argue that almost no legislation would be a good thing. That might actually be the case if much of the nonsense lobbyists push never got off the ground.
There are dozens of bills passed that essentially do nothing but pander to special interest groups and take time away from real issues. The problem is when a real issue is there like malpractice reform or oil taxes input from all sides is essential. You cannot let them have all the say but you also cannot get input from 660,000 people on every piece of legislation.
Did I say the status quo was working? No. It is nice of you to be dishonest in trading punches though.
And if you think I toe any line you clearly are not paying attention. Your need to make this an R or D thing is what is tripping you up.
This initiative will achieve next to nothing. It might make you feel good though. It will also spend a lot of taxpayers dollars which always makes you happy. Oh, that's right, you are an independent, not a liberal. Do you have a bridge for sale as well?
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 7:44pm | Cartman3_16
It took you longer than it usually does, but I knew you'd get there eventually.
You're right, Dog. You never explicitly, literally said you think the status quo is working. But with everything you write, with every suggested correction you dismiss, you appear to be defending the status quo. And you want to accuse someone else of dishonesty?
You are wrong, wrong, wrong to say Clean Elections will achieve nothing. If you put your nihilism and self-importance aside for a moment and read a newspaper or do a Google search, you might discover how much good has come from Clean Elections in the other states currently operating under these rules.
Among the more high-profile achievements is a pronounced, discernible leveling of the playing field for regular folks who are boxed out of the process by the big money that you seem so resigned to.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 9:22pm | TheSdog
No one is resigned to anything.
I tried to find the suggestions I had a while ago but is buried in a blog that is months old at this point and I do not feel like regurgitating it right now.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 5:51pm | Diogenes_lamp
Stick to medicine...You are blowing hard about something you know little about. For some reason, I get the feeling you must know everything about everything, at least in your mind. I've been a little closer to what is actually going on in politics in Juneau, especially so compared with you my good doctor. I can tell you, you really don't have a clue.
It would be silly of me to argue medicine with you but then I realize that.
On the flip side of the coin--you're not there yet. Please never run for office.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 6:10pm | TheSdog
You claim I am the one who is a "know it all" in a post where you claim to be an insider.
If you want to claim to be that "close" you should produce your identity. Otherwise, it is you blowing smoke up your own exit orifice.
I'll leave running for office to dishonest people like yourself.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 6:22pm | Syrin
Thanks..whole thread-Great Read
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 6:12pm | Diogenes_lamp
There is a slight chance I may need a doctor sometime, and I'd certainly like to know who to avoid like the plague.
That being said, I never said I was an "insider." I suppose I could be, in some sense, I could be a potted plant too. I could be a whistleblower and I suppose I could be all kinds of things. Maybe after the last federal arrest, I'll let you know. Post your mailing address or phone number, when I get the time, you'll be the first to know! ;)
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 6:19pm | TheSdog
I choose to believe you are a potted plant.
And since I am not a horticulturist you will never need my services.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 6:55pm | Diogenes_lamp
How would your NOT being a horticulturist, have anything to do with you being the utmost authority on plants?....all things being equal.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 7:47pm | Cartman3_16
Forgive my sophomoric attitude, but good one, Dio!
Well, I hate to say it, but for once Syrin is right. This is a pretty decent thread.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 8:43am | akwillis
Your points are certainly worth a discussion ......
And if we had a functioning legislative forum your points and others would have been debated. Our Legislators would have openly argued and openly voted to accept or reject this concept. We the citizens could have taken some comfort in the fact that our elected officials debated and decided this issue.
Of course the proponents could have proceeded with their initiative petition. However, even they would have benefited from hearing the debate and might have avoided the pitfalls that await us. I have said before that the initiative process is a blunderbuss as compared to a scalpel. The initiative application provides a "one shot" opportunity to phrase a law. Who can expect complex political processes or environmental issues to be wisely addressed in a single writing of a proposed law?
When you have a Legislature that won't debate and resolve issues, intitiatives are what you get.
Look at the available Legislative Basis information and notice the vast number of bills that remain grid locked by committee chairpersons who, for motives unexplained, will not allow hearings of the issues before them.
Clean elections are a step toward the Constitutional Convention we so desperately need. The Constitutional Convention where we reject allowing the Legislatue to write its own procedureal rules and we detail legislative methodology that will insure complete resolution of the peoples business.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
3 March 11, 2008 - 7:53pm | rfn
At the state level this makes sense.
Most of the state taxes in Alaska are paid by the oil companies.
The "taxpayer financing" provisions therefore pass on those oil dollars to candidates.
Kind of finances them coming AND going.
Only filtered through state hands for purity.
Now at the municipal level the taxes are paid by real people. Not that it makes any difference.....just needs to be recognized.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 11, 2008 - 8:40pm | black33
At the state level, oil company taxes were raised because Sarah Palin didn't think they were paying their fair share.
I'll bet RFN would shout from the rooftops if Mayor Begich did the same thing: Raise property taxes on some sector of the Anchorage business community because he didn't think they were paying their fair share.
I bet we would hear a different tune.
The fact is elected officials at the local level are much more sensitive to their constituents when it comes to raising taxes.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 11, 2008 - 8:08pm | Syrin
This explains your whole perverted way of thinking...
Wow, how honorable you are to proclaim .....municipal level the taxes are paid by real people.
And then you say ...
most of the state taxes in Alaska are paid by the oil companies. Guess what? Oil companies are made up of real people.
It's all good, everything should be filtered through state hands for purity.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 11:32am | rfn
an alleged writer of parody songs to grasp sarcasm.
Alas, another unfounded expectation! Like expecting one who is convinced an elected official needs to be replaced but declines....nay, REFUSES to do anything to bring it about.
I shall pray for you. All of you.
~~ rfn, DD
login or register to post comments | flag this »
2 March 11, 2008 - 5:51pm | Diogenes_lamp
The silence is deafening...but it was like that in every state that passed clean elections by initiative. There is something about politicians and their money. It's a love-hate relationship.
They love the money and they hate to give it up. There have been a few politicians that stepped forward so far. You can see some of the names on the link to the clean elections website.
It's been fun to listen to them squirm in the few committees that have been hearing it in Juneau...they don't even like the name "clean"...lol, you have to love these guys!
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 11, 2008 - 9:03pm | akwillis
But what awaits those elected "cleanly"- the same old system.
I bet every freshman legislator has at least a fleeting idea that he or she will perform as an honorable servant of those they represent.
However what awaits them is the Alaska Legislature operating under rules and traditions that could corrupt most any person. Does "clean elections' do away with practices such as the closed caucus, the power of the individual commitee chairperson to disenfranchise the people, and the ability for individual legislators to choose and represent constituents who reside outside of the legislator's district?
After "clean elections" won't the the Treasurer of a major political party still be able fly to Juneau and obtain special interest legislation by interjecting himself directly into the committee process?
"Clean Elections" is a step, but only a step, in the right direction.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 3:16am | richardhoneman
These are great questions aKwillis! I would like to see the current lawmakers answer them. But they won't of course. The current "clean elections bill" is goggleygook, but is a step in the right direction. Each Session they need to get tougher. We need term limits of not more than two terms. But bottom line is NOTHING ever done and NO law that is ever passed will take the place of informed, active voters who are able to "throw the bums out". We now have the Government we deserve in this country. Barbara Honeman
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 11, 2008 - 6:05pm | anthonylemons
to express my support of this initiative. I chose to use my own limited funds for my campaign, and can be a puppet to no one. I wish to bring the government back into the hands of who it righfully belongs to; the people. I ask all citizens to cast their vote in local elections, because local elections have a greater and more direct impact on our lives. Do not let your voice go unheard any longer. Lets take control of our government once again, one candidate at a time.
Anthony Lemons
Eagle River/Chugiak Assembly Candidate
login or register to post comments | flag this »
1 March 11, 2008 - 5:10pm | black33
What's her position on this initiative? It appears to be a good way to reduce potential corruption in state elections (similar to federal financing of presidential elections)?
I'd like to know the governor's opinion.
login or register to post comments | flag this »
March 12, 2008 - 3:20am | richardhoneman
I would also like her opinion Raven. Barbara Honeman
login or register to post comments | flag this »
Important warning about e-mails purporting to be from the adn.com staff.
© Copyright 2008, The Anchorage Daily News, a subsidiary of The McClatchy Company 
Contact Us | Newsroom Contacts | Communication Forms | Subscriptions | Advertising | Featured Advertisers | Terms of Use
Daily News Jobs | RSS Feeds | ADN Store | Newspapers in Education | Privacy Agreement
5 March 12, 2008 - 5:58pm | Emperor
Better than...
...no reform, but way short of the real solution.
As long as candidates are allowed to accept money from people and entities that aren't eligible to vote for the Candidate, we'll NEVER have truly "Clean Elections".
Politicians and the political parties are against these types of reform. That should be an indication that it's a good idea.
So many people feel as though their vote doesn't really matter. That the candidates are bought and paid for by special interest groups. Maybe, just maybe, the passing of "Clean Elections" will entice people to participate and vote. THEN we may be able to return government back to the people.
Clean Elections
Arizona Clean Elections Commission
login or register to post comments | flag this »