|
Influence a horse race in Juneau Labor unions compete with oil and gas interests to dominate financial contributions to state campaigns, lobbying in Alaska Legislature Rose Ragsdale For Petroleum News
If VECO Corp. executives are guilty of throwing their weight around in Juneau, the rest of Alaska’s oil and gas industry, the state’s labor unions and to a lesser extent, general contractors, lawyers and lobbyists, medical doctors, and environmental groups could be tarred with the same brush, according to figures compiled by the Institute on Money in State Politics.
A review of financial contributions to Alaska political campaigns during recent election years shows two special interest categories dominated state campaign-giving in a slugfest of influence evident among few other special interest groups in Alaska.
Among the labor unions, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and Teamsters unions have consistently been the frontrunners in campaign giving.
In 2004, labor unions, led by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Teamsters union, contributed nearly $600,000 to Alaska’s political campaigns, while oil and gas interests pledged more than $400,000, according to Institute records. Lawyers and lobbyists (nearly $400,000), medical doctors and other health professionals (about $200,000), general contractors (about $135,000), and environmental groups (about $95,000) were among other special interests that poured sizable sums into state campaign coffers.
The lion’s share of the funds from oil and gas interests came from the pockets of VECO executives and their relatives, led by businessman Bill Allen, who personally handed out $43,750. VECO is an oil industry service company whose executives have staunchly supported pro-oil initiatives in Alaska for nearly two decades.
In 2002, labor unions coughed up about $350,000, while oil and gas interests went all out, funneling almost $600,000 into state campaign coffers. Again, lawyers, doctors, and general contractors made significant financial showings. Environmental groups scaled back their giving to a mere $17, 126, according to Institute figures.
In 2002, VECO officials led the rush from the oil patch, but many more companies and individuals joined in the giving.
Generosity no crime Does this seemingly excessive generosity from special interests signal ulterior motives and political corruption?
Not necessarily, says election law expert Rick Hasen of Loyola Law School of Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles.
“If these contributions conformed to Alaska campaign finance laws, there is nothing wrong with them. Individuals can give as much as they like. As long as the giving does not exceed the aggregate limits set by state law, and they are not reimbursed by the corporation for which the individuals work, it is legal under state law,” Hasen said in a telephone interview Sept. 13.
The Supreme Court continues to support Congress on its stance to limit campaign finance contributions from both corporations and labor unions, because of the unfair advantage both groups enjoy under state law (the Supreme Court reaffirming that position as recently as 2003).
But there are indications that could change in the future, Hasen said.
Quid pro quo a no-no If generous campaign contributions are OK, then what could be sticking in the craw of investigators from the U.S. Department of Justice who supervised FBI raids of the offices of six Alaska legislators Aug. 31?
“All kinds of things can happen. The FBI could even have information from a sting or a taped conversation of someone admitting illegal activity,” Hasen said.
Although many political candidates and officeholders are people of high integrity, political corruption is a chronic problem. Money has been at the heart of political scandals throughout America’s history; from Teapot Dome to Jack Abramoff, according to Suzanne Novak, deputy Director of the Democracy Program, and research associate Seema Shah, of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
In a report released in July on campaign finance laws in New York, Novak and Shaw wrote that many modern scandals have involved campaign contributions apparently made in exchange for political favors.
In addition to actual corruption, they noted that the appearance of corruption undermines the functioning of our democracy.
“When people believe that public policy is for sale to the highest bidder, confidence in government evaporates. When that mistrust depresses voter engagement, it further undermines democracy, which cannot function properly without an actively participating electorate,” Novak and Shah wrote.
Based on questions asked by various FBI agents who participated in the raids in Alaska, some speculate the federal agency’s investigation is focused on suspicion of public corruption fraud, racketeering (RICO), and extortion.
“Though the contributions may have been within state limits, they could still be illegal if they were made in a ‘quid pro quo’ scheme, where the politicians performed official acts in exchange for the financial support,” Hasen explained.
A copy of one of the search warrants obtained by the Associated Press links the investigation to a production tax law signed last month by Gov. Frank H. Murkowski and a natural gas pipeline contract Murkowski and the state’s three largest oil companies negotiated.
The warrant called for seizure of documents concerning any payment made to lawmakers by VECO’s Bill Allen and Richard Smith. Agents also looked for documents about contracts, agreements or employment of legislators provided by VECO, Allen, Smith and the company’s president, Peter Leathard.
Sought-after items named in the search include hats or other garments bearing the phrases “CBC,” “Corrupt Bastards Club” or “Corrupt Bastards Caucus.” The names apparently refer to a prank some lawmakers indulged in after the writer of an op-ed piece that appeared in Alaska newspapers this summer accused state legislators who received political contributions from VECO executives of being members of such a club.
Hasen said he doubts the prank created any legal problems for the lawmakers. “Whether it was (done) in bad taste is another question,” he added.
Gifts, gratuities, greed The Public Integrity Section of the U.S. Justice Department in Washington, D.C., is overseeing the FBI investigation, according to Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra.
The Public Integrity Section has about 25 attorneys, a team that often lives out of suitcases in pursuit of corruption cases as far away as Guam. They’ve prosecuted petty thefts by sheriff’s deputies, the massive frauds of Enron and the high-profile corruption case of Jack Abramoff.
A quick review of federal investigations conducted in other states in 2005 by the section revealed some types of violations that the FBI may be looking for.
In Ohio and Texas, some half-dozen individuals were charged with a wide-ranging racketeering and extortion scheme in January 2005 involving city government offices in Cleveland and Houston. Examples of improprieties included numerous cash payments, a $4,500 weekend trip to the NFL Super Bowl, a $1,000 dinner and limousine ride in Miami, a $700 Louis Vuitton purse and a $5,000 interest-free loan.
Another 2005 case where members of the Gadsden, Ala., City Council pled guilty to bribery and wire fraud involved small cash payments totaling $2,400.
Hasen said the FBI could be acting on suspicion of activity outside the realm of official campaign contributions. A gratuity or a thank you after the fact for an official act, given to politicians or their aides is also illegal under federal law, he said.
The law, Title 18 USC Ch. 11, Sec. 201 (c), calls for violators to be fined and/or imprisoned for not more than two years.
—The Anchorage Daily News contributed to this article.
| 