Alaska campaign finance ballot measure draws mixed views
by Joshua Armstrong / jarmstrong@newsminer.com
May 01, 2010 | 2370 views | 6 6 comments | 11 11 recommendations | email to a friend | print
FAIRBANKS — Its proponents call it the Clean Government Initiative. Its detractors call it the Gag Law. On Aug. 24, Alaska voters will see it as Ballot Measure 1.

If approved by a majority vote, the initiative would tighten state laws regulating the use of public money for lobbyists and prohibit campaign contributions from recipients of some government contracts and their family members.

The measure prohibits any political contributions from people entered into a no-bid government contract — which includes collective bargaining agreements with public employee unions.

Mike Prax, a former borough assemblyman from 1997-2000, defended the controversial initiative at an Interior Republicans luncheon Friday at the Westmark Hotel.

Prax spoke on behalf of Clean Team Alaska, a group that has pushed the initiative and collected more than 20,000 signatures to have it approved to be on the ballot.

He said the initiative will tone down political action committees that dominate campaigns with donations and lobbyists that overrun the 90-day legislative session.

In his speech, Prax said campaign contributions from the recipients of no-bid contracts were functionally similar to under-the-table payoffs.

“I think that a campaign contribution — though not illegal and not necessarily given with bad intent — it has the same effect,” he said. “You’re buying influence with a campaign contribution. That’s why I make campaign contributions. That’s why everybody makes campaign contributions.”

The initiative has many opponents, including several unions such as the Alaska Public Employee Association, the Alaska State Employee Association and the National Education Association-Alaska. The Alaska Chamber of Commerce, Alaska Municipal League and AARP also oppose the initiative.

The groups have said the initiative would limit people’s ability to petition the government through professional representation. They also charge that it would infringe on the rights of thousands to take part in government through campaign contributions, thus hindering their free speech.

The initiative’s opponents will host a short rally at 1 p.m. today at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers local headquarters.

The first part of the initiative seeks to halt any public funds from promoting a ballot measure. This would tighten the current law, which allows public money to go toward ballot measure campaigns with legislative approval. It also prohibits public money being spent on professional lobbyists.

Using public funds to support an election campaign already is illegal.

The second section of the initiative deals with campaign contributions from businesses receiving government contracts. Legislators would not be allowed to accept contributions from anyone receiving a government contract worth more than $500.

Anyone receiving a no-bid government contract would forfeit the right to, directly or indirectly, make political contributions. This policy extends to contributions from the company directed through officers, employees and their immediate family members.

The initiative states: “Collective bargaining agreements qualify as no-bid government contracts if the contract confers an exclusive representative status to bind all employees to accept the terms and conditions of the contract.”

State Rep. Jay Ramras, R-Fairbanks, agreed with the spirit of the initiative but called it a one-size-fits-all solution to a complex problem that could have unintended consequences.

“I agree with the ballot sponsors that there are negative or unhealthy influences that affect the legislative process for the capital and operating budgets,” he said, “but in chasing that out, I think you also are chasing out a lot of the good information.”

Much of that information comes from people paid to represent school districts and municipalities.

“There are 40 House districts across the state,” Ramras said. “I am a better legislator if I know what is going on in all 40 of those districts, and I know that oftentimes from people whom this legislation would affect.”

The initiative has several gray areas, such as how the law would apply to some types of grants, which Prax said would be straightened out by the judiciary branch.

Clean Team Alaska chairman Dick Randolph asked Republicans not to “nit-pick it to death while Democrats and the public sector keep expanding.”

“If you dwell on the what-ifs of the situation, you’re never going to make up your mind,” he said.

The initiative is 07ANCO and can be read at www.elections.alaska.gov/petitions/status.php.

Contact staff writer Joshua Armstrong at 459-7523.
Comments
(6)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Justliberty
|
May 01, 2010
Therecalcitrant,

Your point about not making quid pro quo contributions is well taken. It's probably fair to say that most 'holders of government contracts' don't make quid pro quo contributions either. The problem is that the opportunities for quid pro quo contributions increase as the official gets to closer to the contract approval loop, or if the contract isn't let through the open bidding process.

The conflicting relationship is unavoidable in the case of government employee labor contracts, because the legislature, (or local equivalent) approves the contract and the governor (or mayor) negotiates the contract. Therefore, its appropriate to prohibit campaign contributions from the labor union that holds the contract to the official who is in a position to approve it.

This ensures an arms length relationship in the contract.

therecalcitrant
|
May 01, 2010
Two things that stuck out to me in this article:

"Clean Team Alaska chairman Dick Randolph asked Republicans not to 'nit-pick it to death while Democrats and the public sector keep expanding.'"

Hey, Dick - I'm a Democrat and I'm not expanding - well, maybe a pound or two, but I'm trying to run more often. And what's the correlation between the passage of this bill and an expanding public sector? I'm not following your logic.

Mike Prax: “You’re buying influence with a campaign contribution. That’s why I make campaign contributions. That’s why everybody makes campaign contributions.”

I dunno, Mike. I routinely make campaign donations with no expectation of quid pro quo, except that I want the politician to honestly represent our best interests as a city, borough, state or country. I think that MOST Americans do the same. It's the few corrupt donors and politicians that make the headlines.

I'm sorry that you've found it necessary to resort to bribery, and hope that in the future, you'll refrain from do so. But please don't assume that everyone thinks like you do.
hrdharry
|
May 01, 2010
Why are the unions opposing this? Lol.
deadmoo
|
May 01, 2010
I'd like to thank Mr. Prax for having the courage to admit what we all know is true about campaign contributions.

"You’re buying influence with a campaign contribution. That’s why I make campaign contributions. That’s why everybody makes campaign contributions.”

The truth in that statement is why I'll vote for this ballot measure.
Lance_Roberts
|
May 01, 2010
It's great to see something come up that will help stop the corruption. This is probably the most important thing we can vote on this year.
Larmex
|
May 01, 2010
WHAT, do you mean to tell me I will no longer be able to buy a legislator ? What is this world comming to ?
Newsminer.com encourages a lively exchange of ideas regarding topics in the news. Users are solely responsible for the content. Comments are not pre-approved by News-Miner staff. Please keep it clean, respect others and use the 'report abuse' link when necessary. Read our full user's agreement.