Murkowski Shows Some Backbone On Obamacaricide, At Least On Energy Bill

I need to give credit to one of my US Senators, Republican Lisa Murkowski, for calling out her colleagues for blocking legislation with amendments intended to kill or maim Obamacare. 

In this case Murkowski seems to be upset about amendments to kill the Affordable Care Act added onto an energy bill to require the government to be more energy efficient and require more energy efficient building codes.  I suspect some of this the Obama administration could and would do without legislation.

I don't want to make too big a deal about this because her voting record on the government funding bills appears to be less daring.  Looking at her voting record for the last week, it appears she voted the Republican Party line on the government shut down.  The key vote that was not split on party lines was the 79-19 vote to end Sen. Cruz's filibuster.    Murkowski voted with the 79 to end the filibuster.  That vote allowed the Democrats to pass an amendment to cut out the House attempts to kill the Affordable Care Act and then to pass the Senate  bill to keep the government running. (Which the House then rejected.)  Those last two votes were split on party lines too. (Does that mean that all but 19 Republicans really wanted the government funding to pass so they helped end the filibuster to give the Democrats the room to pass it, but they didn't want their constituents see a yes vote on the actual bill?)


From The Hill:

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on Wednesday called out Republicans who tried to pile ObamaCare amendments onto bipartisan energy efficiency legislation that recently stalled on the Senate floor.

“What we need to reckon with is the fact that you have got a process that is being used for political advantage and gain rather than to advance policy,” she said.

Of course, if they are willing to shut down the whole government to kill Obama's health reform, a little energy bill is no big deal to them.  

“Maybe we need to embarrass those in the leadership that it is high time that you focus on the policy side of this,” Murkowski said at an energy forum hosted by the group Center Forward.

She expressed hope that, if the bill returns to the floor, an agreement could be struck that only allowed energy-related amendments. .  .

While Murkowski criticized efforts to link the bill to ObamaCare, she predicted that if it hadn’t been for those amendments, there would have been others that Reid found “equally onerous” and given him “cause to pause.”

The underlying energy bill contains measures to encourage better building codes, train workers in energy efficient building technologies, help manufacturers become more efficient and bolster efficiency in federal buildings."

Here's a link to the whole piece, "Sen Murkowski Calls Out Her Party For Energy Riders."

Politics Not As Usual - Murkowski Votes To End Don't Ask Don't Tell

Sen. Lisa Murkowski was among eight Republicans to vote to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT), staying consistent with comments she made a couple of weeks ago that she thought it was time to end the policy.   But this must have been a pretty hard decision for her, harder than probably any other of the Republicans who voted against their party position. 

Murkowski lost the Republican primary.  This vote on DADT  ensures that the rabid right of the Alaska Republican party will work hard to defeat her again in the 2016 primary.  While her write-in re-election (close to being settled now in the Alaska Supreme Court) required the support of lots of Democrats and Independents who believe she owes them votes on some critical issues, she didn't have to break ranks with most of the Republicans here.  Perhaps she believes that in six years gays in the military will be a non-issue.  A likely US Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of California's Prop. 7 is likely to keep GLBT issues hot for the 2012 Presidential election and possibly beyond.

Plus Alaska has not been friendly to GLBT issues.  Alaskan voters amended the State Constitution to make explicit that marriage means one man and one woman.  

Can Murkowski win her next Republican primary?  At this point, I would expect her to have some heavy opposition.  Would she run in the primary as an independent?  Six years is a long time in politics, but she must have been thinking about these things when she voted to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. 

I don't see this as anything but a principled vote for what she believed was the best policy, in the face of her party's general opposition.

Looking at all eight Republicans who voted for repeal, on the surface there seem to be three key factors:

• State support of same-sex marriage or civil unions
• Collins and Snowe of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts
• Gender 
• The only woman of 17 in the Senate not voting for repeal was  Kay Baily Hutchinson (R TX.)  The other three Republican women - Collins, Snowe, and Murkowski - voted for repeal.
• Age
•  Of the male Republicans who voted for repeal all but one were among the 20 youngest Senators.  The exception, George Voinovich, is retiring. 

Here's a bit more on the:

• other seven Republicans who voted to repeal DADT
• three Republicans who were absent
• one Democrat who was absent (no Democrats voted against it)

Republicans who voted for repeal


Scott Brown  (51) (R-Mass.)

Brown won the right to finish Ted Kennedy's term as US Senator, is up for reelection in the first US state to allow same-sex marriage.   


Richard M. Burr (55)  (R NC)

The National Review writes:

Burr said it was not a difficult vote to cast, despite his state’s being home to Camp Lejeune, the largest Marine Corps base on the East Coast. Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps, had been one of the most high-profile opponents of repeal. “Hopefully we all think independently here and we listen; we don’t have to be lobbied or influenced,” he said.

Burr told reporters that he supported repeal because “this is a policy that generationally is right,” but said he “didn’t necessarily agree” with those who have characterized the issue as a civil-rights struggle.

“A majority of Americans have grown up at a time [when] they don’t think exclusion is the right thing for the United States to do,” Burr said. “It’s not the accepted practice anywhere else in our society, and it only makes sense.”

I don't know enough about North Carolina politics to know how his vote compares to Murkowski's.  He has the largest Marine Corps base in the US in his state and the Marines were the of branch of the military most strongly opposed to repealing DADT.  On the other hand he did well in the 2010 election according to Wikipedia:

Burr defeated North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (D) on November 2nd, 2010 with 55% of the vote. He is the first Republican since Jesse Helms to be re-elected to the United States Senate from North Carolina and garnered the largest percentage of votes of any Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in North Carolina history.

Susan Collins (R-Maine) (58) and Olympia Snowe (63) (R-Maine)

Collins has been the leading Republican Senator in support of repealing DADT.  She was the only Republican Senator who voted in favor the Defense Bill that had DADT attached earlier in December.  Olympia Snowe joined her when DADT was a stand alone bill.  Both Maine's Representatives (both Democrats) in the House voted for the bill.  I haven't checked, but this is the only state I know of where the whole Congressional delegation voted for repeal.  Maine allows domestic partnerships.

Same-sex marriage in Maine was a divisive issue in 2009: a bill to allow same-sex marriages in Maine was signed into law on May 6, 2009, by Governor Baldacci following legislative approval, but opponents successfully petitioned for a referendum on the issue, putting the law on hold before it came into effect before going on to win the referendum by 300,848 to 267,828 on November 3, 2009. Maine's domestic partnership law remains in effect. [Wikipedia]

John Ensign (52) R Nevada

I'm stretching here, but Nevada seems a little looser on moral issues with long time legalized gambling and prostitution.  Liberace was an institution in Las Vegas.  

The National Review wrote: 

Before the vote, Ensign said the choice for him was a struggle between what he personally thought was the right thing to do, and the circumstantial concerns of various military chiefs.

That’s why, he explained, he had voted against taking up the measure.

But in the end, once the question on the table, it appeared personal conviction won out over political circumstance. “My personal feeling is that it should be repealed,” he’d said before the 65-to-31 vote.

Ensign left the Senate chamber quickly and quietly . . .

Mark Kirk (51) (R-Ill.)

Kirk, a Naval Reserve Officer, moved up to the Senate from the House in a special election to finish out Obama's Senate seat and start his own six year term in January.  In the House he voted "against   Constitutional marriage amendments, he supported ending job discrimination based on sexual orientation and received a favorable 75 percent rating from the Human Rights Campaign on gay rights issues."  [Huffington Post]

From The Examiner.com in Chicago

Is Sen. Kirk really in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the military?  His past history suggests otherwise.  As a member of the House Armed Services Committee Kirk voted against a measure to repeal DADT as recently as last May.  One suspects that his slim margin of victory in November's senatorial contest may have sensitized Sen. Kirk to the realities of representing the entire state of Illinois, not just the 10th congressional district.  Once Governor Pat Quinn gets around to signing the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act already sitting on his desk, the state of Illinois will recognize civil unions. A "no" vote on DADT would have put Mark Kirk at odds with a very large bloc of Illinois voters.  It also would have provided potent ammunition for the next Democratic challenger for his senate seat.

George Voinovich (74) (R-Ohio)

Voinovich is retiring from the Senate.  






Republicans who didn't vote

Jim Bunning (79) (R KY)

Bunning, who barely won his last election in 2004, and was named by Time Magazine as one of the five worst Senators, is retiring at the end of this term.



Judd Gregg (63)  (R (NH)

Same sex marriage became legal in New Hampshire in January 2010.

Gregg is retiring at the end of this term.


Orrin G. Hatch (76) (R UT)

Polygamy has a history in Utah, but the Mormon church has been strongly opposed to same-sex marriage and Hatch is an institution in Utah who doesn't have to worry that his absence would harm him in any way. 

The Salt Lake City Tribune reports:

Sen. Orrin Hatch was absent for the vote but registered his dissent from afar. He said November’s election should have shown that voters want Congress to focus on the economy — not try to appeal to their liberal supporters.

“Rather than take part in this cynical exercise in political charades, I am honoring a long-standing commitment I made more than a year ago to attend my grandson’s graduation in Missouri,” Hatch said.

Democrat who didn't vote

Joe Manchin III (63) (D WV) 

It appears that Manchin, newly elected to fill the seat of Sen. Robert Byrd is trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing. He's up for election again in 2012. He skipped this vote and the vote on the Dream Act. He's the only Democrat who didn't vote for repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Murkowski Moves the End of Don't Ask Don't Tell Closer

From KTVA's interview with Lisa Murkowski on Thursday, November 18:

On the Don't Ask, Don't Tell vote
[Murkowski] I have said that I would work to make sure that as long as it is supported by the troops, as long as it doesn't hurt the performance or the morale, or the recruitment -- these are all things we have to take into consideration -- I think we will see that play out in this report.
If in fact don't ask don't tell is included in the Defense Authorization Act and we get to the point where we can move that bill through - I would not oppose the defense authorization act because the Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal of it is included in it.

Rachel Maddow discussed the implication of this announcement along with word of other Republican senators who are said to be willing to vote to end DADT. This is a long (ten minute) video that starts with the Murkowski story and then looks at the DADT vote overall in context of the Defense Authorization Act.  There are still a number of issues surrounding the Defense Authorization Act and how it is handled that could hold things up.  But there seem to be enough Republican senators willing to go against their party on this so that not just one can be attacked. 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If, in fact, Murkowski's conditions are met and she votes to end Don't Ask Don't Tell, this would be one clear example of the difference between a vote for Murkowski and a vote for Miller.

Does Lisa Murkowski's Religious Preference Matter?

I've gotten maybe half a dozen hits here from people googling "Lisa Murkowski Jew" or "Lisa Murkowski Jewish."  These people get to a post about Murkowski courting the Jewish vote.    

[UPDATE: Nov. 8 - I'm still getting people asking these questions. At least now they get to this page. If that's how you got here, please, leave a comment below or email me explaining why you wanted to know?]


Sitemeter offers a lot of information about people who get to this site, but it's mostly about their computer's features and their location, not their motivation.

Today I got someone who asked outright, "Is Lisa Murkowski Jewish?"

Why would someone want to know that?  As a Jew whose grandparents all died in Nazi Germany, I get a bit edgy over inquiries like this.  It seems to me there are two basic categories of people wanting to know:

• Jews  - Like any ethnic group in the US, Jews are interested in knowing about members of their group who are prominent and successful.  Some may even be ready to support a candidate because she is Jewish on the (often erroneous) assumption that she would support issues they support.  But Murkowski is not a name that most Jews would think of as likely to be Jewish.  So my guess is that the people googling "Murkowski" and "Jew" are probably NOT Jews.

• Non-Jews - I really don't know why non-Jews would google "Murkowski Jew."  I'm sure there are good, reasonable explanations.  Maybe readers might offer some reasons to help me out here.  But I also know that there are still a lot of White Power websites out there. 

I do think that a candidate's religion can be relevant in an election.  If some candidates' religions play a strong role in their values and will impact decisions they will face as elected officials, then the public has a right to know this so they can vote for the candidates who most closely represent them.

But a candidate's religion doesn't necessarily predict how they will decide specific issues.  Not every Mormon or Catholic or Hindu follows their religious dictates faithfully.  And there are different factions in most religions that differ on important issues.  One simply can't generalize from someone's religion.  Every candidate is an individual.  We need to see the candidates' records and the stands they take.

So I'm still curious about why someone would google "Is Lisa Murkowski a Jew?"  What would it mean to these people to find out that she is or is not Jewish?  Why not just google something like:  "Lisa Murkowski religion"? 

Just for the record, Lisa Murkowski is NOT Jewish.  If you really need to know what her religion is you can check out her Wikipedia page. 

Murkowski Courts Jewish Voters on Yom Kippur

Lisa Murkowski stopped by at Temple Beth Sholom at the end of services today as people were breaking the fast.  I took advantage of her presence to talk to her about how US embassies mistreat people applying for visas.  I'd written her a letter about this about five years ago after observing how callously Chinese visa seekers were treated in Beijing.  And two weeks ago the New York Times had a piece about German Opera and Theater director Peter Stein who canceled his planned work on Boris Godunov at New York's Metropolitan Opera because of how he was treated by the US consular officials in Berlin.   As he explained it:

In June he went to the consulate in Berlin for a work visa for the Met job and was forced, he said, to stand for hours in a stifling room with 50 other visa applicants. When he finally reached the consular official, “He said to me, ‘Why don’t you laugh?’ ” Mr. Stein recounted. “I said, ‘I stay here for two and a half hours standing and I am an old man.’ ”

The officer replied, “ ‘In this case you will not have a visa,’ and sent me away,” Mr. Stein said. Mr. Stein said the experience left him humiliated and deeply offended.

The same sort of treatment went on in Beijing - elderly folks had to stand for hours waiting to get visas.   And the officials have this same sort of arbitrary power to capriciously turn people down like this.

Murkowski agreed strongly that this was not a good way to win the hearts and minds of people around the world. 

The people I asked thought it was a little tacky to campaign at the synagogue on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, but thought it was normal for American politics.  They also pointed out that Scott McAdams was there ten days ago for Rosh Hashanah, the beginning of the High Holy Days, which I hadn't noticed.

NOTE:  I did not have my camera with me during services.  It was out in the car though and I got it after services when I found out Murkowski was there.  Maybe this blogging thing is getting to be too much.

More Signs That Lisa Is Running?

I went to the season introduction at Out North Thursday night - more on that later.    I ran into Pico there and he told me he'd been at the campaign sign graveyard near Ship Creek.

I'm not quite sure where this was but he said there were lots of old, large campaign signs for all different candidates. Theaters like Cyranos and Out North sometimes recycle them when they are making sets.

Anyway, he took these pictures of men gathering the Lisa Murkowski signs and putting them into a truck. Is this a clue about what she might announce Friday?

[All the photos in this post courtesy of Pico.]

Is Lisa Going To Run?

APRN's interview with Lisa Murkowski today suggests that Lisa is still thinking about doing a write-in campaign.  (Today's (Sept. 16) news isn't up yet on their website, but you should be able to get it here by tomorrow.)

But one of the signs that says to me that there's a very good chance she'll try is Paul Jenkins.  He's been a Republican Party insider for years.   He's done a couple of opinion pieces in the Anchorage Daily News - one strongly urging Murkowski to run as a write-in and the other vehemently attacking Joe Miller.

On September 4 he did a piece titled  Murkowski Was Classy But Wrong,
(wrong for not attacking Miller)  which included this:

With Miller in the race, and her on the sidelines, Democrats have a real chance against Miller, who too easily is painted a far-right tea party whack-job and a Sarah Palin clone who channels Joe Vogler and tilts at windmills. Many people find him very scary. Miller's malarkey plays well to the GOP's sometimes irrational far right, living in its own fantasy world, but he may be unable to clinch the seat when the rest of Alaska catches on.

Then on a September 11 there was,   Miller is full of whoppers, and they keep getting bigger

In this piece he quotes "a pal" named Izzo:

"The bigger the fib, the better. It's like that Hitler deal, lie and lie large, or something like that. It helps, of course, if your audience is dumber than a wet sock.

"That mook with the Democrats, McWhatshisface, can't even answer questions. My man Miller makes up the questions -- and the answers, too. He's great."

He ends his imaginary conversation with Izzo (and the piece) with:

So, what you are telling me is that not only did he lie about Lisa Murkowski and her stands on the federal stimulus, abortion and Obamacare during the primary, his campaign planks and his promises to voters are shaky, too? I ask.

"I'm just saying," Izzo says. "Ya gotta love this guy.

Why would anybody buy this stuff? I ask. Miller's a guy who, three days into the story, did not even know some preacher was about to burn Qurans in Florida. How could any Alaskan be manipulated into backing him? How long before his supporters get it? Who are these people?

"Suckers," Izzo says with a big smile. "Suckers."

Probably I'm naive,  but I can't see how Jenkins could come out and support Miller after trash talking him like this.  And he's surely not going to support a Democrat. So that leaves Lisa as a candidate.

 [Update:  Someone emailed me a quote from Paul Jenkins saying he had to support Tony Knowles over Sarah Palin for Governor. 

Voice of the Times, 11.3.2006

By PAUL JENKINS

May the Lord have mercy on my soul. I think I have to vote for Tony Knowles. That's right. Tony Knowles. ...

 And remember, Knowles lost to Palin.]

Alaska Election Context 3 - How Vulnerable Was Lisa Murkowski?

In Part 1 I looked at looked at Alaska's registered voter rate (apparently 96%).
In Part 2 I looked at the US Senate race and how the primaries work in Alaska.
In this post I'll look at Sen. Lisa Murkowski's background.

[UPDATE Aug 28:  A reader sent me this link to Anchorage attorney Don Mitchell's Huffington Post piece on the same topic, which has the same gist, but gives much richer detail than do I.]

These are thoughts aimed more at non-Alaskans.  Alaskans know all this and will, no doubt, correct me if I misreported anywhere.

Lisa Murkowski was a Republican state legislators with whom Democrats could live and  Republicans had some problems.  She was for women's rights, if not completely pro-choice, friendly, smart, articulate, and not of her father, Senator Frank Murkowski's, generation.  'Environmental' wasn't an epithet to her. 

She won her 2002 reelection to the State House by only 52 votes in the Republican primary  and then faced no opposition in the general election. 

That same year, her father had deciding to leave the Senate and run for Governor of Alaska.  In a January 2008 post speculating why Murkowski might have decided to leave to the Senate to run for governor I wrote:

The oil controlled state legislature passed a bill that said, in case a US Senate seat becomes vacant, the newly elected governor, not the currently sitting governor, makes the appointment. Everyone knew the purpose was to give Murkowski the power to appoint his successor. If this hadn’t passed, retiring governor Tony Knowles would have appointed the next US Senator. But it did pass assuring that, if Murkowki won, he could appoint his daughter. If he lost, he was still in the Senate.

This was settled before he ran for Governor.  Republicans didn't like the idea of a Democrat appointing Murkowski's successor and, given the reaction when he did appoint his daughter to the position, most people hadn't  anticipated that Frank would appoint Lisa. 

Appointing Lisa to the US Senate was the first seriously unpopular act of the new Governor.  Most people thought it was tacky at best, unethical or even illegal at worst.  Rival Republicans for the position were pissed.  The more conservative Republicans were particularly dismayed, while the moderate Republicans were less upset.  Democrats were ambivalent.  They thought it reeked of nepotism, but of all the Republican contenders, Lisa was probably the best in their eyes.

Gov. Murkowski went on to do a lot of things that got everyone mad from cutting benefits to seniors to buying a private jet - with administrative funds when the legislature said no.  (One of Palin's first acts as governor was to announce she was putting the jet on e-bay.)

Since Palin's run for governor knocked off Frank Murkowski in the Republican primary in 2006, there has been no love lost between the Murkowskis and Palin.  As an Alaskan, if I had to pick between  Sarah Palin and Lisa Murkowski to represent my state to the world, it would be Murkowski hands down.

But, when Lisa Murkowski got to the US Senate, she got into a much less flexible Republican majority where she forgot the words 'global climate change' and probably left the room entirely when abortion came up.  She quickly moved into the party leadership by moving way right.  There had always seemed to be a real ideological difference between Murkowski the elder and Murkowski the younger, but that seems to have mostly evaporated.

There was some question about whether Lisa could get elected on her own, but she had no real primary competition in 2004 when she had to run.  In the general election Republicans saw her as the lesser to two evils and united behind her against former Democratic  Gov. Tony Knowles.  At that point, I think, people thought she'd established herself, even if the Republicans didn't love her.

But Palin knew that Murkowski's Republican support was pretty shallow. And there is still a lot of resentment toward her dad and her original appointment.  There was even talk that Palin might run against her.  But then she'd have to take a pay cut and lose some of her spotlight.   But she probably saw this current race as a good opportunity to settle old scores.  Even if Miller hadn't gotten this close, she would be telling Murkowski to watch her back.

Add to that a primary with 25% turnout and a ballot measure on abortion and she was vulnerable. All Miller needed to do was get about 9% of Alaskan voters to vote for him. 

So while this seems to come as a huge surprise, the conditions were ripe for it to happen if the right factors came into play.  And they did.

A Low Point in Alaska Journalism

Yesterday there was a news conference with Lisa Murkowski. The brains and brawn behind the Alaska Report attended and made this tape of a local Anchorage TV journalist who asked Lisa Murkowski to "Please state and spell your name." Then, "And for the record, your title."

I understand that many Americans cannot name their representatives or senators, but a journalist?! This is pathetic.

Dennis writes that Sen. Murkowski smiled when she saw him cracking up. Watch and listen for yourself. This is a sad day in Alaska journalism.

When Denial Ends

Phil at Alaska Progressive salutes Rich Mauer's ADN article on the Young-Abramoff connections today. Phil also talks about Dennis Greenia at Daily Kos whose been working on the Abromovff Scandal for a while now under the name Dengre and whose research has helped Phil in the past and Mauer in this new article.

Phil also links to an October 6, 2006 post he did on this topic covering much of the same ground.

All this relates to an important theme for me (see the name of this blog) - how people 'know' what they know. One wonders about the Alaskan voters who have elected and reelected Don Young all these years despite all the evidence that his response was to shout like a bully at anyone - including constituents - who asked questions about things like Abramoff and the Marianas.

Thomas Kuhn, the physicist who put the word 'paradigm' (see links to Kuhn in an earlier post) into the American mainstream, said that scientitists don't discard their old paradigms - even when they know they are faulty - until they have a better one to replace them with. I think that makes sense here.

I remember the evidence piling up that - despite his denial - Richard Nixon was a crook. Yet he was reelected for a second term. People didn't want to believe that there president was a crook. They didn't want to believe that Viet Nam was a mistake and that the great USA was on the wrong side and was losing. (Some people still think we could have won, whatever that means, but we were politically hampered. But looking back from today, we can see that the whole rationale of our being there - to keep the dominoes of Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Burma, Malaysia, etc. from falling to Communism - was a model of things that did not accurately reflect what was happening.) While there were questions about Nixon, their beliefs overall were being challenged and they didn't have another belief system to switch to.

So, it has taken a while for the American public to lose faith in George W. Bush.

And it seems like forever for Alaskans to lose faith in Don Young.

Radical Catholic Mom raises a point that I didn't think of this morning: the poisonous role on American politics of one issue voting blocks. In this case she cites the Right to Life over everything else crowd for helping to keep Young in power.

It goes to the heart of the whole "vote pro-life only" camp. I received an email ripping me one for even hinting that I could POSSIBLY argue for voting for a "pro-abort" candidate. I responded that it ain't black and white, honey. Don Young and other Republican corrupt, disgusting, anti-life politicians who shamefully used the pro-life vote to continue in office and push through this Mariana Islands deal where women were raped, again and again and again, forced to abort their babies, and then forced to make clothes for the US consumer reflect why the traditional pro-life vote needs to become CRITICAL. WHO are we electing?

If a group is so obsessed with one issue that they are willing to close their eyes to everything else a candidate might do if only he takes a strong stand on their issue, then we get politicians who use those voters to carry out their immoral actions.

The point for me is NOT Don Young, but how we help US citizens to

• understand how to critically evaluate candidates,
  
• critically evaluate interest groups that urge them to vote based on certain issues,
  
• see beyond the very short term simplistic promises to understand who they are really putting into power.

I think Alaskans have gotten the point on Don Young. They got the point on Frank Murkowski (who, by the way, gets points on his outraged reaction to the Marianas situation

Murkowski said, he "talked with some Bangladesh workers who had not been paid and who were living in appalling conditions." He also described a young woman taken to Saipan as a minor and forced to work as a prostitute. (from Mauer piece)

though he continued to publicly support Young and according to the Mauer article

Since leaving office, Murkowski has declined to talk about the Marianas issue.

Again, my point is NOT Young or Murkowski, my point is about how voters

• gather the information they use,
  
• how they analyze that information, and
  
• how they decide to vote.

Plea By Jim Clark, Frank Murkowski Chief of Staff, Means He's Helping Feds

Chiang Mai Time: March 4, 2008 1:50pm


Reading this ADN headline from Chiang Mai means everyone else knows a lot more about what's going on than I do.

Former Murkowski chief of staff pleads guilty to corruption

The charge to which he pleaded guilty, is relatively minor in the big scheme of things - charging $68,000 in political polls by Dave Dittman to Veco - but is bigger money than any of the three already convicted legislators saw.

Specifically, from the ADN link to the plea agreement, here's what he pleaded guilty to:

[NOTE: Double Click on the Images to Englarge Them]

For this, according to the documents, he's facing:

These are recommended sentences from the prosecutors. Nothing binds the judge, and all this is dependent on how well Clark cooperates, meaning how well he shares what he knows, testifies as a government witness in court, etc. The recommendation is for a three level downward departure from the sentencing guidelines. So far Judge Sedwick, in the one case of a cooperating witness in this series of cases - Bill Bobrick - has followed the recommendations of prosecutors.


From the ADN link to the Factual Basis for the Plea are more details:





More important, is that Jim Clark must have worked out a deal, meaning that he's been telling the FBI and Federal Prosecutors what he knows about the Murkowski administration. This could get interesting.

Thanks to the ADN for posting the court documents on their website.

Someone at PSI is Checking on Frank Murkowski

Performance Systems International is an international human capital consulting firm that helps build business success by enhancing and aligning organisation, team and leadership activity.

We work with our clients’ unique culture, challenges and business aspirations to convert strategy into practice, achieve meaningful change and realise long-term organisation development.

I don't know if it is idle curiosity or professional, but someone there looked him up today.


And someone at the National Futures Association looked up "fbi agent sean mcdermott."

National Futures Association (NFA) is the industrywide, self-regulatory organization for the U.S. futures industry. We strive every day to develop rules, programs and services that safeguard market integrity, protect investors and help our Members meet their regulatory responsibilities.

Managing risk by trading futures and options on futures contracts is a vital component of the global economy. Every business day tens of millions of futures contracts are traded on an increasingly broad spectrum of products, including agricultural commodities, oil, precious metals, equities, treasury bonds, financial indexes and foreign currencies.

Investor confidence is crucial to the success of the futures markets, and the best way to gain investor confidence is to ensure that the highest levels of integrity are demanded of all market participants and intermediaries.

In these cases if I reveal my sources, people will stop googling on their corporate internet servers and then I wouldn't learn these things. Is this a little like accidentally hitting redial on your cell phone and leaving a message on someone's voice mail?

Blog Ethics - Sex Sells and so does Victor Lebow

I always find surprises in the google search topics that get people to my site. Dennis at AlaskaReport (by the way check out their story on Don "Corleone" Young while you're there) recently shared that he has an entertainment section because that's what people want - along with stats showing Heath Ledger, Britney Spears, and other celebs being top hits. So I shouldn't be surprised with all the people googling Bambi Tyree. In the last 40 or so site views six were looking for Bambi from:
Sophia, Bulgaria
Miami, Florida
Las Cruces, NM
Cranberry Twp, PA
Philadelphia, PA
Spokane, WA

Do you think if her parents had named her Martha things would have turned outdifferent?

On the other hand 10% of the last 100 were still looking up Victor Lebow, including someone from Ankara, Turkey. If you got here looking up Victor Lebow, go here. While in LA I looked up Victor Lebow I found a Victoria who lived near my mom. I phoned her and after a number of calls to relatives "I hadn't talked to in 55 years" she said that the Victor Lebow who wrote about American Consumerism is not related to her family. But the Victor Lebow from Wichita, KS whose picture I posted is a relative. So that confirms my suspicion they were two different people.

Also had someone from the US House of Representatives look at yesterday's chart of Blacks in Congress, and finally, someone got here googling:

"Carnival cruises send passenger flowers."

Media Ethics Note: Sometimes people do send me links to stories they'd like me to link, like the Corleone story. If I do link to these stories it's because I think they have something worthwhile. And I'm not above critiquing the stories people pass on to me. This doesn't happen a lot, but I mention it here because I think people should see what happens behind the scenes. Is it unethical for me to link to that story? No. Does the fact that AlaskaReport sometimes links to me a problem? It could be if I posted their stories because I thought it would keep them promoting my stories. This is the beginning of ethics creep. It starts out innocent enough, all with good intentions, but if one isn't careful, one's judgment gets lazy. I'm not a politician and I'm not making policy decisions based on favors others do for me. But readers should know if the newspapers, tv shows, or blogs they read are pushing stories or omitting stories because they might affect their advertising.

I say this because a lot of blogging chatter is about how to pump up site views. Trading links among sites is a popular means. I don't think this matters much for personal blogs among friends. But it does for blogs that edge into journalism. At the very least, there should be disclosure. So, let me disclose that last week when Alaska Report linked to my speculations about why Murkowski left the US Senate to be governor of Alaska, my site views for that day more than doubled. But I linked to the Don Young story above because it adds a few tidbits to what we know.

Why Did Frank Murkowski Leave the US Senate to Become Governor?

I’ve been waiting for someone to have a contest. The winner would be the person who would write the best answer to the question: Why Did Frank Murkowski Leave the US Senate to Run for Governor? I think we’d get a lot of interesting entries. But since the ADN said yesterday that Murkowski has returned to the state to get the gas pipeline going and no one seems to be holding that contest, I’m just going to have to post my answer here.



Being a US Senator is a nice job. There are only 100 of them. A lot of power concentrated in a few hands. Lots of people with money are suddenly their best friends. If you have any ego at all, you’ll find no shortage of strokers. The basic story, though this one was played out in the minor leagues, was spelled out in the testimony at the Anderson, Kott, and Kohring trials.

Being a Governor isn’t quite as cushy as being US Senator. While there are only 50 of them, they actually have to do things. They are the administrators of their states. What they do directly affects the lives of their constituents every day. Their decisions aren't hidden by 99 other deciders. And they aren’t way off in Washington where their constituents can’t see them. If they are out of state, tv announcers tell people if they are off at some tropical resort on a large corporations expense account.

No one in his right mind would leave the Senate to become a Governor.

But Senator Murkowski did just that. Why? If I recall correctly, one of his reasons was that he wanted to be back home in Alaska, near his grandchildren. (Has anyone seen him in Alaska since he left office? The ADN story yesterday says he'd been missing a year til he just showed up.)

I can’t tell you for sure. He hasn’t called me up to tell me. But after attending the Anderson, Kott, and Kohring trials last year, I’ve got a possible explanation that seems to be consistent with all the known facts. (Well, other people know a lot more of the facts than I do, but at least the ones I know.)

I think there was a careful plan. His job was to go back to Alaska and set up an Alaska natural gas pipeline deal that met the needs of the big three oil companies who don’t seem to have any interest in giving up the natural gas until they have used it to squeeze out every possible drop of profitable oil. Then, and only then, might this be of interest. So, it was with this in mind, that they talked Frank Murkowski into giving up his plush Washington DC life. So what does Frank get out of this? We don’t know what kind of promises they made him for future jobs or other sorts of payments when the various ethical statues no longer covered him. But there was one very public prize he got in his first months in office.

Lisa goes to Washington.

We know this was well thought out before he even announced he was running for governor. The oil controlled state legislature passed a bill that said, in case a US Senate seat becomes vacant, the newly elected governor, not the currently sitting governor, makes the appointment. Everyone knew the purpose was to give Murkowski the power to appoint his successor. If this hadn’t passed, retiring governor Tony Knowles would have appointed the next US Senator. But it did pass assuring that, if Murkowki won, he could appoint his daughter. If he lost, he was still in the Senate.

With a fool proof Republican majority in the state house and senate, Murkowski began closed door ‘negotiations’ with the big three oil companies for a petroleum profits tax, that was the first step toward the gas pipeline deal. The deal included a lot of sweetness for the oil companies, including a 40 year ban on any changes to the tax rate, without their having to guarantee anything. He told us he was negotiating hard to get the best deal for Alaska, except that no one but his closest staff got to sit in. So how do we know what they did behind those closed doors?

As the agreement, kept secret from the Republican legislators even, finally got to the legislature, in spring 2006, the governor kept delaying his announcement of whether he was going to run for a second term as governor. That upstart Republican controlled legislature began asking questions and the bill wasn’t sailing through. It was only at the very last minute, when his critical PPT bill was falling apart, and the deadline loomed for officially becoming a candidate, that Murkowski announced he was running for reelection. At this point, his popularity was lower than all but one other US governor, and polls had him trailing. Why oh why would any sensible politician run in that situation?

The only explanation I can think of that makes any sense is that he had a sweetheart deal with the oil companies that he was going to go back to Alaska and deliver them their tax deal and then their guaranteed “if it eventually looks ok for us, we’ll build the damn pipeline, but until we're ready you can’t harass us” pipeline deal. It should have been done by then, but it wasn’t, so he had to run again to finish the business. I don’t know what they all promised Frank. John Perkins, who wrote Confessions of an Economic Hitman, says that he (Perkins) got a do-nothing six figure job to NOT write a book about how multinational corporations operated. The limit on US Senators going to work for companies with connections to their Senatorial work would be over by then. I think he had a two year limit then after being governor. So in the meantime he could get, say, six $50,000 a pop speaking engagement a year for $200K, or the oil companies could find some friendly company that had no involvement that could hire Frank.

But it didn’t pass in the regular session. Frank had to call a special session. And it didn’t pass, the way they wanted it, in the special sessions. And there was still the pipeline deal to finish. But at least now, he would have until January to do the deed. But then the unthinkable happened. Frank lost the Republican primary. It was clear that he wouldn’t get away with the deal, even though there were rumors he was going to do it administratively. So what went wrong?

Frank couldn’t wait. He’d gotten too used to all the perks and to everyone agreeing with whatever he said. Getting Lisa her Senate seat riled a number of folks, including Republicans - some who just thought it was unseemly, others who had coveted the position themselves. Then he just couldn’t wait for his own private jet. He didn’t care what anyone thought. Then he went on to rile a bunch of people by cutting the Longevity Bonus and various other actions that left few people on his side.

Frank, I’m guessing, thought he could take all these politically unpopular actions because he knew he wasn’t going to run again. He would have delivered his part to the oil companies and then they would deliver whatever it was they had promised to him. His life would be sweet and rich. His daughter would be in the US Senate. All would be well in his world

While the oil companies worked directly with the governor, their intermediary, Bill Allen was taking care of the legislature. But they didn’t count on how obtuse Frank could be and how badly his actions would antogonize the electorate and other Republicans. And no one could have counted on a former small town mayor, a former jock and beauty queen no less, who would stand up to the party bosses and call them on their corruption. Well, maybe they could have imagined that, but they couldn’t have imagined that she would not only get away with it, but that she would rally the voters to her cause.

In the end, he couldn’t deliver. Are they going to reward him anyway? In most years, we would never know. But this year we have the FBI checking out all sorts of things, and there is a chance we might find out if my story bears any resemblance to what actually took place.

And now he's back negotiating. As who? As what? Well, clearly they must have offered him something really good and he's not going to give up that easy. Of course, there's also the possibility that he only has the state's best interests in mind and he sees Sarah screwing things up, so he's back, like Daddy, to fix the mistakes us voters (like rebellious, immature children) made by electing Sarah.

Sarah Palin and Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

Governor Sarah Palin yesterday stood up to Conoco Philips and said their deal is no deal for Alaska. Calling the legislature back into session and leaning on them with the weight of her considerable popularity with Alaskans to revise the Petroleum Profits Tax was also an example of what a principled politician can do. Think about Frank Murkowski, Bill Allen, the large oil companies and their PR flaks as you read the opening to John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and other foreign "aid" organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet's natural resources. Their tools include fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization.

John Perkins' book is hard for Americans to believe, even liberals. It contradicts most of the key interlocking stories that Americans learn:

Story I: The United States of America is the exceptional great nation where freedom and democracy were introduced to the world.
Story 2: The USA is basically good. Those who commit crimes will be punished. Those who work hard will succeed and do well.
Story 3: The Constitution and the Rule of Law are sacred in the USA.
Story 5: Capitalism is the only economic system that promotes freedom and justice
Story 6: What's good for General Motors is good for the USA (Today we can substitute whatever large corporation, such as Conoco-Philips)
Story 7: In other countries the press is not free, but in the US there is no censorship

While we all know there are exceptions to each of these, most Americans down deep tend to believe these stories. Thomas Kuhn (link to Science Friday audio about Kuhn), whose The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Wikipedia link) introduced the word paradigm into the modern American vocabulary, said that even when scientists (he used the word only about scientific paradigms) know their paradigm isn't quite right, they hold onto it until they have a better one with which to replace it. So even though we know there are problems, we stick to our old stories about the USA because we don't have an acceptable alternative. Churchill is said to have coined this phrase that shuts down those who challenge our system: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

But I don't think we have to challenge the system or the stories. Perkins' story doesn't challenge the values of democracy and freedom. Rather he challenges those who wrap themselves in the sacred stories of the system, while they pervert the system for their own power and wealth.

Instead of US policy and corporations being about helping other countries, he says its about conquering them economically and stealing their resources. This is a story Alaska is all too familiar with - starting with the Russians who were after furs, then those after copper and gold, fishing and timber, and oil. The original Pebble Mine folks were so brazen they even called their company Northern Dynasty. What sort of ego names their company "Dynasty?"

While the tactics are a little different when working within US territory, the basic purpose is to gain access to resources as cheaply as possible by buying off those responsible for protecting them. After the trials of Anderson, Kott, and Kohring, Alaskans can no longer believe the myths that our politicians are all working for us, or that the oil companies are giving us the best deal. The posturing of the oil companies this year is right out of Perkins' play book.

Perkins would go into a country to do an economic assessment for developing a power infrastructure. His instructions were to greatly inflate the future power needs of the country and design an infrastructure that would support the industrial needs of the corporations waiting to come into the country. They would snow the country leaders into applying for loans from the World Bank and other such international lenders. Loans they would never be able to repay. Once the countries had overwhelming debts, they essentially became the pawns of US foreign and economic policy.

If the leaders were reluctant, there was plenty of money with which to convince them. If the leaders still refused, the CIA backed real hit men to get them out of the way. The book is dedicated to two such leaders, who Perkins said were principled and stood up for their countries, Jaime Roldós, president of Equador, and Omar Torrijos, president of Panama, both of whom

died in fiery crashes. Their deaths were not accidental. They were assassinated because they opposed that fraternity of corporate, government, and banking heads whose goal is global empire.

I don't expect Governor Palin to die in a fiery crash, but she is pissing off people who aren't used to being refused. You've heard the arrogant tones of the oil companies and their supporters in court and on talk radio and in the newspapers.

I've held off on writing about Perkins because there was one aspect of the book that has bothered me throughout. If what he was being asked to do was so evil, why did he do it for so long? I think I'm irked especially because he was a Peace Corps volunteer and should have known better. He raises this question frequently in the book and I don't think he does that good a job of answering it. The words are there, but it's hollow for me. I think because it is an emotional issue and he doesn't do emotion very well. He writes about being born into "generations of puritanical ancestors," so that may play a part. I also think it's hollow because he does still feel guilty for his part in this. But I've looked on his website and listened to his short Democracy Now interview and I think I'm convinced.

Basically, his recruiters did a very good job. He had a day of interviews while hooked up to a lie detector. They pulled out of him all of his insecurities and weaknesses - his sex life, how he felt about money, his resentment for being the poor teacher's son at an exclusive prep school, etc. And then they used his insecurities to trap him into his job. He also knew what happened to presidents who crossed his bosses, what might happen to him? Besides, he got used to the expensive life he led, traveling the world, feted at international meetings, working with world leaders. It's heady stuff.

His website shows that he has been 'repenting' ever since. He held off writing because he was paid half a million dollars to keep quiet. He used that money he says to develop projects aimed at helping the people he'd harmed. Finally, with the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, he felt he could keep quiet no more, and pulled out the manuscript he had started several times.

So, for understanding the power plays between Gov. Palin and the oil companies, as well as understanding why the rest of the world, particularly the less developed world, might not see the American Way quite the same as our stories of it, read the book. You don't have to agree, you don't have to believe it. But at least read it. Then tell me where it is inaccurate. In specifics.

Kott Trial - Kott Sentenced to 72 Months

Peter Kott was sentenced today to

• 72 months in Federal Prison. All terms to run concurrently.
• 3 years supervised release
• $10,000 fine

The government requested that he be remanded immediately because of minor infractions on his recent trip to Las Vegas (they mentioned that he didn't give his itinerary or phone numbers) The judge rejected this saying the issues were minor, he was not a flight risk, and that he will be in prison a long time and the holidays are coming up.

The judge had ordered Kott to surrender in Anchorage, but the defense argued that this would require him to probably spend time in the local jail. The government nothing to say on this and the judge agreed to let him self report to federal prison, but he would have to pay his own fare and there was no guarantee it would be at Sheridan, the nearest federal prison.

The judge rejected the defense request for the judge to ask for alcohol treatment in prison. The government argued this was a ruse to get a lowered sentence (participation in such programs count toward lowering a sentence).

Court adjourned about 10:20am after starting at 8:30am.



I'll spell check my messy and incomplete 'transcripts' then add them to this post. Probably 30 minutes more.

[11:43am It's taken me more than the 30 minutes. Here are my 'transcripts' - they are NOT accurate, but just a sketch of what was said. I'll add more comments in a second post]

December 7, 2007 Kott Trial
8:33am Judge seems to still have a cold, but sounds almost ok

Judge Sedwick: US objects to pre-sentence report - based on prop there were multiple bribes
Total value of benefits
Lack of two level upward adjustment
Implicit objections to others

Par. 100 description of when he wasn’t drinking
He has ability to pay a fine
That his lawyer didn’t make any suggestions to ??
Implicitly to 77 and 148 about upward adjustments

Additional, Mr. Wendt?
Court mention par 67

Par. 167 irrelevant - don’t have impact on sentencing.
Others - all statements of fact are supported and adopt them
Objections in order

[US Senate candidate Ray Metcalfe, Anchorage Assemblyperson Allen Tesche in the courtroom]

Mr. Wendt has laid out concerns:
Goeke: Mr. Kott asking for job from Allen - before jury, Allen in tape: ‘What do you really want to be?’ Kott: ‘A lobbyist for Veco.’ Allen: ‘You have it.’

Wendt: [defense attorney] This conversation very late in the recordings. Even this late, Allen didn’t know what Kott wanted. He simply answered honestly. He didn’t ask for help. Record complete with joke about Barbados.

Judge: I do find evidence in the record about seeking a job. - Discusses back and forth. Passage of PPT suggests that Kott failed to deliver and lost primary, reasonable that he not ask for job.

Payment of $5000 as a bribe. Fair to begin that defendant doesn’t dispute the $5K. Need to determine proper characterization of the $5K

Goeke: [Prosecutor] Testimony by Kott - he tried to characterize it as a loan, which is flatly contradicted by his testimony. He called it a loan, but made no attempt to pay it back even though he had the cash. Solicited more funds while had this loan. Based on the facts that Mr. Kott has established, it was clearly a bribe.

Wendt: I believe mr. Goeke is incorrect. He didn’t receive $5000 [?] while he was working for Veco. They have burden of proof to produce evidence or proof. No evidence provided at trial. They can’t come in with arms folded and say this is so. The only evidence is Kott’s saying it was a loan. There doesn’t have to be a written contract between friends. Burden on the government.

Judge: Both agree on $5000. I think the evidence that it was a bribe is insufficient. Allen and Kott were close friends and Allen admired Kott’s work ethic. To Allen, $5000 is not very much money, so he literally probably didn’t care if he didn’t get it back. To Kott, it was fairly significant. Probably he did think of it as a loan. This explanation is just as persuasive as the argument it’s a bribe. But I will keep the $5000 in the calculation of the value.

Ample room to argue about other matters.

Wendt: Multiple bribes issue - my argument would be - a person is expected to act in a certain way, then they receive a bribe, then they carry out what they are supposed to do. Then it turns out to be more difficult, so requests more. That would be multiple bribes. These are all instances after the PPT legislation. Wasn’t situation where we will keep giving you money so you will carry out what you are supposed to do. A bribe can be a payment to do something or a reward for something done. The argument then is he didn’t receive one reward, but multiple rewards over time. But wasn’t …. Fact that rewards came at different times. They aren’t separate instances … These are gratuities, not bribes. The $1000 should not be considered a bribe. That was payback for making $1000 donation.
Gifts because he liked PKott. Not bribes, gifts.

Goeke: I heard Mr. Wendt say that Mr. K was not guilty. The jury found these were bribes. Wendt wants to tether it back to PPT as a whole. But trial showed there were multiple events, amendments, in the course of that legislation. Tried to adjourn legislature, lobby other legislators, etc. These were all separate acts. Allen’s testimony about 519 in prior sessions. “We introduced that through Mr. K”.
Benefits in different ways - poll, money in fraudulent polling bill, cash for campaign contribution to Murkowski. It was a benefit - $1000 in his pocket he didn’t have before. These were motivation to keep Kott going toward the goal. They kept up until the very last moment. He was there till the very end. Helping in different ways at different times. The jury heard all this.

J. Sedwick - While I do agree the most relevant case is 9th circuit 3 factors to determine multiple
1. Whether all payments for single action
2. Installments
3. Method

Three distinct actions, thus multiple bribes

Goeke says different acts and different bribes - I disagree - but all of this was done because of Veco’s interest to have PPT at certain level. Room to argue that solicitation for job is separated in time and so should be considered differently. I think with respect to even that, continuing vitality was attributed to VECO wanting to have PPT passed at certain level. Don’t look like installments, but still related to single purpose.
Method: Whether same different or same payee.
Conclusion there were not multiple bribes. True, diverse ways and multiple forms, but disguised in different ways. Not multiple bribes, but hiding.
So, not multiple bribes.

Total value calculation. In pre-sentence report four levels in sentencing.

Wendt: Thank you your honor. Unable to find court precedent. Best I had was net value. If the court considers the job offer, only fair way is to say, how much is the job worth in money - net value. Examples of net value of contract. Here net value of job.
If a person is a lobbyist, don’t understand why the court feels the lobbyist would work 12 months out of the year.

J: Don’t have to argue that, I agree.

Wendt: Aren’t many special sessions, not all for oil and gas issues. Amount lobbyist gets paid is public record, available at APOC, on line. I’ve obtained record for lobbyist - Paul Richards - received $3000 per month in 2007. Even if we take Bill Allen’s testimony of $6000 month, for three months, we get $18,000. You make money by getting other clients, not just one. If he took this job, he would have to give up his hardwood flooring job. Net value has to subtract what he would have made in his hardwood flooring job. I would argue it wouldn’t make him more money, just he liked the job better.
Popular belief that lobbyists get hundreds of thousands isn’t true. Compared to Mr. Richards who would get $9000 minus $6000 for hardwood flooring = $3000. Difference is not getting hands dirty and get paid.

Marsh: [Prosecutor]
1. Evidence used: Best evidence the court can get. Not evidence about another lobbyist, but testimony at trial, under oath, subject to cross exam, about how much Allen intended to pay kott. That was $6K. It would be a multi year arrangement. The probation office was far from aggressive. They could have picked a higher amount for a number of years.
2. Limits of job. Legislature going to 3 months wasn’t even contemplated at that time.

J: Legislator can’t become a lobbyist for 3 years?

M: At the time it was 1 year. Not just lobbyist, but also consultant. Kott said, “I’m gonna be a consultant, like Knauss.”

J: The individual named - used both terms.

M: He did both. Maybe a deferred payment. Nothing suggests a deferred payment is not a bribe. “The value of the benefit received or to be received.” Mr. Allen told us under oath what he believed those figures to be. There is nothing to prevent the court from ruling this. One other thing. Net value. It seemed plain from the testimony, that Kott wanted this job to stop doing the hardwood flooring. The whole point was to change his job. Mr. Allen understood and believed, that if Mr. Kott did lobby for Veco, it would give Kott the cache to solicit other clients.
$6K/month
Not limited to session Many things a legislator can do outside of the session.

J: Difficult topics, both argued well. I couldn’t find case law either.

1. Undisputed $7,993 should be included. $1000 should also be included. Wendt’s argument didn’t hold water. Got benefit of contributing to Gov M’s campaign. Jones contribution to Brown’s campaign - worth $1000 to Jones. Allen’s $1000 was on top of that.
2. Same kind of problem several times, but in different context. Difficulty in calculating value in drug cases. Meth lab case about how much meth could this lab have produced. Very difficult. But one theme that also applies here. Appeal Courts have said, when you are estimating you have to err on the side of the defendant, after all, these are just estimates. We don’t know how long he would have been a lobbyist if he continued on that career. Wendt makes a point, but Marsh does too. If you had one good client, you could attract other clients.
Mr. Allen’s testimony does support $6000 prop, but not necessarily 12 months a year. Also consider a job, no matter how much people expect it to go well at the outset, may not. Kott had serious alcohol problem. Evidence lobbyists and legislators, maybe he would have overcome his dependency on alcohol, but could also have gotten worse. Multiple years is speculation. I find the lobbying job worth
$18,000 -
$29, 743 which - $7,500 each for 2 polls
Between $10 and 30K - four levels. Even if I hadn’t included the lobbying job, it would be the same. The $18K for lobbying
[Note: I missed something here because the math doesn’t add up for me. My notes explicitly include from the judge:
$1000 for campaign contribution reimbursement I’ve got
$15,000 (two polls) [I only remember one poll for $7500]
$18,000 (value of future job)
$5000 (for truck loan)
$7.993 (for flooring bill padding)
That comes to $46,000. But the judge said the total was $29,743. For the sentencing guidelines that falls within the $10,000 - $30,000 level in the guidelines. If there were only one poll and we deduct $7500, we’re well above $30,000. I’m confused by what the judge did and did not count in calculating the total amount received.]
3. Upward adjustment. First from Government.

Marsh: Organizer leader, manager, supervisor of criminal activity. While true that push from Allen and Smith predominantly, and Kott tasked to Lt if not more, by Allen and smith, but also to go out to make sure other people would do things. LeDoux confirmed that she did speak several times. Also Weyhrauch, when he moved to adjourn it was because Kott asked W to do so. Another example of Kott taking orders, sometimes on his own, went out to get others to do their bidding.
Wendt: This relates to leaders, managers, and supervisors ….. In this case Allen was leader, Smith a manager, STevens might have a roll, but wasn’t taking orders from Kott. LeDoux said he wasn’t doing anything different from other legislators. That’s what we do. I look at this as borderline frivolous. Bit was Allen and Smith. Kott wasn’t leading or organizing anyone. I just don’t see it.

J: I don’t characterize the argument as frivolous. But I don’t buy it. He did it because he was corporal or sergeant, not Lt. Or captain. Overruled.

4. Last guideline issue 9:25am whether he committed perjury
Wendt: Little to say more than I have written. He was on the stand for hours. He never denied that payments were made. He said they were - payback for contribution to M campaign. You can find it was a bribe, but it’s not perjury. The only thing is about whether future flooring work could have been done. Jury could have found them guilty. He was willing to do it fro free. Mr. Allen agreed to that. He does flooring for others for free or to pay back other favors. No perjury. He may have been looking at the facts through his own interpretation. Never said black was white. Grey area here of what is right and wrong. Clearly jury found against us, but that is not perjury. He testified truthfully about many things. Who can doubt he would do future flooring work for more money. HE didn’t testify the poll wasn’t done, just that he didn’t care about it. Mr. K’s position was, if you are doing a poll, thanks very much. He merely said, he didn’t receive the poll himself.

[Kott’s family - son (I think), daughter, Debora Stovern in court]

Goeke: He did commit perjury and got others to. Flooring, concocted story about what it was for, for work at Smiths and Allens house in future. The jury rejected it in the verdict. Smith said he knew nothing about it. Ms. Stovern said they made the invoice after the fact. That is …….. Perjury.

To the last day, about how he voted, that’s why he said he voted no. Mr. Kott talked about Mr. Moses. He would have voted to reopen the session. Directly ,,,,, told jury he came to decision of conscience. Couldn’t explain why voted no and only changed it after the final vote. Jury didn’t buy it. That’s the perjury.
But also lied to tribunal. Less a material matter, but cash bond at end of the trial. Kott said he didn’t have the money for that. Mr. Stovern, subordination of perjury. Kott’s comments about invoices, contradicted by Allen and Smith, plainly false. And jury had to find it so.

J. 1. False statement under oath in court
2. Material matter
3. Willfully, not by mistake,

I find it easy to conclude perjury for $7,993 and wouldn’t be surprised if Goeke said it was frivolous, but Wendt made it in good faith. I am completely convinced Mr. K made false testimony, willfully, under oath. Carefully crafted to deceive the jury.

24 and not 28

Any victims who wish to speak? NO

Wendt: Nature of offense and character of the defendant. Offense, unusual compared to others. Usually, receive money or benefits for themselves. Here
Poll he didn’t want
$7,793 went to son
$1000 check he’d written
Vague talk about a job

Not the same as finding $90K in his freezer. Nature of this offense makes it different. Not doing something for someone that directly harmed someone else. Normally, someone is paid for getting a contract. If ABC gets contract, other construction company doesn’t get the contract. He was a pro development person. He was just supporting the governor's proposal, that would have, we would hope, get a gas pipeline.
As it turns out there is harm because of the criminal investigation, but no direct harm because of what he did.

Has subtle characteristics that should stand out. From letters.
Gone out of his way to help people with no power fairly.
Flooring for free to people with power
Treated aides well. Treats garbage man and governor fairly.

He deserves a bit a break under 3553: apply penalty sufficient but not greater than necessary. Mr. Kott was a thoroughly decent man, doesn’t need to go to jail for ???months. Public service in politics doesn’t differentiate him. Air force does. Father worked in GM and he did very well. Then he met Mr. Allen. Genuine friendship. Mr. A has some bad points to personality - pays people to get things and doesn’t follow the rules. Also very seductive. Also worked up from poverty. Two individuals from same political philosophy. Formed friendship. Lived with Allen for three months. With someone in excess of $100 million. Still getting up early to do hardwood flooring. Didn’t ask for a dime. He was almost embarrassed to ask for a job. He knows that Allen gave others a job - Stevens and Anderson. Defendant who was almost seduced into this. I know he was an adult man and that’s no excuse. In some ways Allen is very charming, and he wanted the same things allen wanted. I would argue to the court, nature of the offense, nothing for himself and characteristics and value system, should result in sentence that is lower than guideline the court has found. Finally Kott is not a young man - 58 - he’ll be past 60 when he gets out. No need to to protect public. Five years would be enormous for him. Please, this is not a bad man.

Fine issue? Now that level 24, minimum is less, from $10-100K. We would argue for no fine. Yes, Mr. K has saved up some money. Still married to his wife. She has some interest in. He won’t be putting in hardwood floors at 60. He could certainly pay the fine, it would leave him very little when he gets out.

Marsh: I find it interesting when discussing the value of the Veco job that they ask you to consider net worth of hardwood flooring job, but now say he couldn’t do hardwood flooring in two years.

Any public corruption case strikes a blow about faith in political system. Those are normal cases. But when prominent and powerful member, when that person is caught on tape soliciting bribes that affects billions of dollars of taxpayer money. We agree that it is unusual, extraordinary, egregious behavior. Corrupted the views of the public that had to watch what was really going on with that bill.

Many defendants ask for leniency based on circumstances or nature of crime. In neither of those can he take advantage of arguments. He’d made something of himself - former officer in the military. Classifying secure documents. Had profession. Job. Former career. Family. Ten years in legislator. Not a victim of extenuating circumstances, He did it himself.

These were multiple bribes, obvious steps at concealing, and perjury, purpose to gerrymander tax rate of money coming off the north slope. We all know the oil is increasing and revenue is significant. Purpose was to keep the tax rate lower. Second, we submit that facts and way it came about makes it extraordinary.

Brazen - beg, borrow, steal, sold my sole to the devil. Bragged about lengths to which he would go to make good for bribes.

Most disturbing, statements he made about his constituents. When he didn’t know people were looking - tape - I’d vote for 30% tax if it weren’t this man here. He could tell constituents whatever I want, I use them, I abuse them. What is the impact of former speaker of the house saying I use them I abuse them? There is no way to quantify that harm. This does take this out of the sentencing guidelines. We disagree this was not all because of Bill Allen’s seductiveness.

Mr. K’s sentence has already been compounded because of his perjury at trial. And to deter and punish - his own and son’s testimony ….. I’ll try to contain myself on the idea there is no direct harm. Unbelievable to think there was no harm by those who tried, thru bribes to affect the PPT. That that is less criminal than sending $30,000. It didn’t go to contractors, it went to state of alaska. Billions.

Kott had enough money to pay his son $8K, but he didn’t. He asked for money from allen.

3553a6 - unwanted sentence disparity between different defendants. When you compare the conduct - Mr. Anderson’s conduct pales in comparison to Mr. Kott’s. He did all sorts of things - detailed - shut down whole House to shut down for Allen. This deserves a much more significant sentence than what Anderson received.

This is a bout choices. Unlike many here. Mr. Kott didn’t have to be here. He wasn’t forced into legislature because he didn’t have enough money. He chose this. He sought it multiple times. Weyhrauch offered things of value in exchange for doing their bidding, that it was his choice. We submit that sentencing range set for in the level 28 is the bottom level and ask the court to depart upward at the high end of 28 - 97 months. ????

Mr. Kott:

I want people of AK to know I’m deeply sorry for my actions and words. All my actions, I truly felt I did in the best interests of the State of Alaska. My statements away from the floor of the legislature, I deeply regret and apologize. I hope that the opinion of me will soften over years. Always been my goal to bring out the potential of the state. To the court I apologize for being here and taking up your time.

J: Thank you Mr. Kott. This court directed by congress to consider:

1. Nature and circumstances of the offense - Mr. Marsh has the better argument. This Offense has cause people to questions the whole political system of Alaska. Causes us all to wonder what really goes on in Juneau. Maybe Kott in his heart of heart really believes. Whether right or not, but needs to be decided in legislature free of the influence of allen and smith. Whether their view is correct or not, it is driven by greed. He knew he need to do the bidding of his customers rather than the publics. I don’t know if 20/20 was the best legislation. I have no way to know. But it should have been decided on its merits free of Allen’s influence. Money involved was indeed hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. Of interest to everyone in the state of Alaska. Every PFD recipient.

2. Surprising that Kott convicted with the crime he was convicted. Given his background and air force. Such service is so we can live in society that is free and democratic. So all the time he spent to defend that political process, came to naught because he joined those who would corrupt it. History would support modest sentence, but the nature of the offense os substantial that his own previous history is much outweighed.

3. Promote respect for justice and crime committed
At sentencing level or even higher justified. Defer others in the future. Allen may be seduced Kott, but Kott has considerable experience. There are always people, often with money, who can overcome people. Need to stiffen some backbones. Need to put priorities in order, public first over close friends.

4. Special needs - medical care, education. No specific. Can’t describe him as middle age, but no particular needs. Can be provided in institutional setting

4. Protect community from Kott. I’m convinced Kott isn’t going to indulge in criminal conduct in future. Only possibility is alcohol abuse. Not significant risk

6. Range 51-6? Months - Disparity. Guideline is usually the best way to do that. But here we have related cases. Mr. Anderson’s sentence has to be acknowledged and Marsh is correct that although Anderson’s conduct bad, Kott’s was even worth. Kott has some stature. Anderson was basically a lightweight. Kott was a leader among our elected officials. So I think significantly above Anderson's and guidelines is warranted.

7. Restitution not relevant here

Looking back at the trial and everything and consider to apply a sentence sufficient but no more than necessary 72 months is sufficient. Gov’s 97 is more than sufficient.

72 months all terms to run concurrently
3 years supervised release concurrently
No firearm, controlled substances - waive drug testing. Only substance abuse problem is alcohol.
Participate in treatment program. Testing for alcohol use.
Cooperate in collection of DNA
Assist on financial information
Not possess
I find he does have ability to pay fine - $10,000 immediately - installments ok. Interest not waived. And special assessment of $300.

I don’t believe Govt. Is seek remand at this time.

Goeke: We are. Have notified Wendt prior. Aware that he made trips to Las Vegas. He is not being compliant

J: Didn’t give itinerary or phone numbers. Agree not compliant. Not right, but not as serious that usually makes remand.

Goeke: We agree we didn’t ask for remand before sentencing. But - not danger to the community..

J. Your real concern is flight

G: Appropriate, some concern with flight. Be truthful. Not only time secretive about whereabouts, about funds.

W: For the record, I’m the one who said he didn’t have funds, and he didn’t. Regarding the memo….I just saw this today, didn’t know about this. I would like to listen to the tape. Mr. Kott says he gave them his cell phone number.

J: That isn’t enough, but there are further allegations

W: Anderson wasn’t remanded. No issue here

J: I agree. If no danger of flight. Especially at holiday season. He’s going away for a long time. Government’s request for remand is denied. But, if there are any violations of stipulations, you will be. Do you understand Mr. Kott. You need to surrender here in Anchorage. Until facility designated. Any recommendations.

W: We would suggest Sheridan.

J. I do recommend Sheridan because that is the closest to his family.

G: Count one has ????? OK will be served concurrently.

W: We would request that he self report to Sheridan. If he reports here he will be in the jail here.

G: no problem

J. I will amend that. Mr. Kott that means you have to pay your own way there. And it may not be Sheridan. I’ll recommend it.

W: Court has recommended for alcohol treatment. We ask that the J ask for that from the BOP.

J: Govt. Have a position on that?

G: I believe that is based on attempt to lower the sentence. I have yet to hear Mr. Kott talk about that.

J: I agree Mr. K won’t have alcohol while incarcerated and he’s a smart man and can deal with that problem when he gets out.