Political Corruption Visible Miles Away

The view at 1,000 feet provides a different perspective than the view obtained from standing on the ground. It’s what Harvard Professor Marty Linsky calls the importance of  “getting up on the balcony” to see the dance floor.

Linsky, who instructs the leadership program at the Kennedy School of Government, uses the balcony analogy to teach public officials the importance of getting the best possible look at emerging challenges and opportunities.

Viewing government from the balcony is critical if public policy makers are to respond to the threats against the public’s best interest. But when it comes to ethics, the balcony appears to be empty.
 
From Washington D.C. to Adak, Alaska questions about the ethical behavior of politicians are growing louder and louder. From illegal money being funneled through political parties to politicians enjoying cozy relationships with donors, every day provides yet another example of why public over sight needs to be strengthened, not weakened.

In Alaska, the political winds are blowing in the opposite direction. The trend seems to be less is better. The less the Alaskan public knows - the better it is for Alaskan politicians.

During the current administration, Alaska’s campaign finance and ethics laws have become increasingly weakened at the expense of the public good. In three short years, the governor has doubled campaign donation amounts, limited the amount of public disclosure from individuals lobbying government and even attempted to bring back corporate soft money. And if you want to question any of it, God help you.

Take the ethics proposal by State Sen. Ralph Seekins, the powerful Senate Judiciary Chairman. For some reason, Seekins believed the people of Alaska needed yet another shock when it came to ethics. So he proceeded to introduce legislation that would jail and fine anyone who speaks publicly about filing an ethics complaint.

This attempt to restrict the public’s recourse shouldn’t come as a shock as Seekins has a history of attempting to restrict the public’s recourse. In 2002 as a citizen lobbyist he opposed an amendment to HB182 that finally created consumer right protections for buyers of used cars in Alaska. In 2003 he passed out of his committee a bill that restricted the right to sue the government that was quickly ruled unconstitutional.

Still, even Seekins should have realized that after three years of Randy Ruedrich, Gregg Renkes and a supporting cast of ethically challenged characters, Alaskans had already exceeded their shock value limit. Apparently for Seekins, the best public policy fix for his colleague’s ethical abuses is to take away the public’s right to speak out against his colleague’s ethical abuses.

And why is protecting the public’s right to know and speak so critically important to Alaska? The view is clear from my balcony.

Today, one of Alaska’s biggest political contributors and most powerful political figures writes large checks to legislators –for something called consulting. This practice is becoming increasingly common. And because legislators are able to seek refuge behind weak disclosure laws, they’re free from having to produce any evidence of work product exchanged for compensation.

So why does Alaska need stronger disclosure laws?

Two days after I was elected as a freshman representative in 1998, the House Majority caucus was scheduled to meet to elect leadership for the coming legislative session. Answering my phone I was greeted by the voice of the most profligate political donor in Alaska. A man whose name appears on a large amount of political contributions as well as prominently on the masthead of the Voice of the Times as its publisher, Bill Allen.

After opening salutations he got right to the reason for his call, he insisted my vote go to Pete Kott for Speaker of the House. When I declined, he pointedly reminded me about the financial help he had given the party and the fundraiser he had sponsored for my campaign months earlier. I quickly ended the call.

Today the same campaign donor who tried to influence my vote writes $50,000 checks to my state senator –Ben Stevens, for something called consulting.

That’s why Alaska needs stronger disclosure laws.