Was I supposed to be happy about this? I understand having a Democratic Senator in a state where red voters tend to turn out better than blue voters means we have a hybrid Senator who thinks (and probably is right) that he has to support big oil to get reelected.
But who sent it? The other side gave that info on the bottom.
The American Petroleum Institute uses pictures of pristine snowy mountains on both sides of the postcard. No pipeline pictures. No Kulluk oil rigs. No oil company profit statements. Just the beautiful Alaskan landscapes. (Or something that looks like an Alaskan landscape.) You'd think though they could have found a second Begich picture.
I'd love to have been an invisible observer at the meeting where they decided to send this out. What were there motives? To piss off Begich's Democratic supporters? To let Mark know this is what he gets when he votes right, but if he votes wrong . . .
What's the message to his Republican opponents?
On the simplest level, it's just asking Alaskans to call an thank Mark for his vote.
The American Petroleum Institute gave more money to the Democratic Governor's Association, according to Open Secrets, than to anyone else. Given current disclosure laws post Citizens United, I'm not sure how much money is given, but not identified. They list political contributions which I'm guessing are for 2012:
Contributions to candidates: $235,970But you'll notice they gave almost four times as much to 527 committees (that can fund campaigns without disclosing donors, if I understand it right) than they gave to parties.
Contributions to Leadership PACs: $9,500
Contributions to parties: $128,226
Contributions to 527 committees: $558,010
Contributions to outside spending groups: $0"
And the contributions pale compared to the $6 + million they spend annually on lobbyists.