The title of this blog isn't just whimsical. I am concerned about how people approach knowing 'the truth.' Here's an exercise in that activity.
Below is a press release. I've read about some of this on Progressive Alaska, but I have no direct knowledge of what has happened. I know that people react to something like this based on their predisposition toward the situation. This situation is about a University professor in Alaska who has resigned after the University interfered with his funding apparently because of what they saw as inappropriate political speech. He was doing work related to environmental issues and spoke up at public forums. So, if one is disposed against 'intellectuals' or 'environmentalists' you might well dismiss this organization's statement as 'obviously politically biased.' If you are a strong supporter of civil rights and environmental issues, you might just as uncritically bristle with indignation at the injustice you read.
It's reasonable to read such things, from sources you don't know, skeptically. It's what one should do, no matter what side of an issue you are on. And then do more research. I'm in the middle of doing legislative coverage and this is a bit of a distraction at the moment. But I think it behooves us all, especially as the University of Alaska is searching for a new president, to pay attention to what is happening at the state's university.
As a former grievance representative for the University faculty union, I know that grievants come with one thing in common: they feel that they've been wronged. Inevitably, there are parts of the story that have been left out. After more research, it becomes clear whether they have a valid grievance (a. their problem is covered by the rules as a legitimate basis for a grievance and b. the violation has, in fact, taken place.)
I don't have enough information on the Steiner case. Here we have PEER protesting the treatment of one of its members. What is PEER? From the PEER website:
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) is a national alliance of local state and federal resource professionals. PEER’s environmental work is solely directed by the needs of its members. As a consequence, we have the distinct honor of serving resource professionals who daily cast profiles in courage in cubicles across the country.
An organization that does such work, has to carefully choose the battles that they fight. There are plenty of disgruntled workers who have weak or no grounds for protest, who may themselves be the source of the problems. Organizations like PEER, who take on unfounded cases will quickly use up their resources fighting losing battles. This will decrease their membership and do harm to their reputations. So we have to see what others say.
Charity Navigator rates them highly, which relates to their organizational effectiveness and capacity. This doesn't mean they are right on this case, but it does suggest they aren't some rock throwing group that takes up the cause of every angry public employee working on the environmental issues.
On the other hand, in 2005 the Catholic League was disturbed by PEER's work:
LEFTISTS RESORT TO BIGOTRY TO TAR SCOTT BLOCH
March 30, 2005
Scott Bloch commands the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and has come under attack by a left-wing non-profit group, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), for his policy decisions and hiring practices. PEER, headed by Jeff Ruch, has protested publicly that Bloch has hired some graduates of Ave Maria law school. His most recent criticisms came on March 25 in an interview he had on National Public Radio (NPR). The host of the show, Bob Garfield, sided with Ruch.
But as I followed up on this story, I found a National Journal story three years later that reports:
White House Fires Special Counsel Bloch
Thursday, Oct. 23, 2008
Scott Bloch, the embattled head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, was fired today in a meeting with White House officials, according to several sources. Bloch is under federal investigation for possible obstruction of justice ...
I urge readers to do their own background research to satisfy themselves one way or the other on this report.
All that said, here's the beginning of the press release. You can click here or at the end, to read the rest. I put this up, not because I've confirmed all the details, but rather to let people know, so they can educate themselves on the issue.
For Immediate Release: February 3, 2010
Contact: Kirsten Stade (202) 265-7337
INTERNATIONAL SCIENTISTS CONDEMN PURGE OF PROFESSOR — Scientific Commission Decries Oil Industry Influence at University of Alaska
Washington, DC — A prestigious international scientific body today sent a blistering letter to the University Alaska protesting the influence of the oil industry in the treatment and funding of academic researchers. Released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), the letter condemns the University’s decision to revoke federal funding for a marine conservation specialist in retaliation for his protests of bias in University-sponsored programs promoting drilling in Arctic waters.
The February 3, 2010 letter from the Commission on Environmental, Economic, and Social Policy (CEESP) of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) takes the University to task for its actions against Professor Rick Steiner, who has resigned from its faculty (effective this past Monday, February 1, 2010) following its removal of any further National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Sea Grant funding this past fall:
“CEESP members have become increasingly concerned at the way in which Prof. Steiner has been treated by your University. They believe that the University of Alaska administration has engaged in what is known as “constructive dismissal” of Prof. Steiner. From the documents we have seen, it is clear that Prof. Steiner was punished for publicly expressing his expert perspective on one particular offshore oil and gas proposal in Alaska’s Bristol Bay, and for criticizing a University of Alaska / Shell Oil conference on the matter which he felt was biased toward a pro-drilling decision. This was not just his right to do so, it was his job to do so. Academic freedom and the responsibility of academics to be the public conscience are cornerstones of being a credible academic.” [Emphasis in original]
I know something about this bill, because I was working on this bill for Rep. Gruenberg when I was his staffer. The purpose of the bill is to make the representation on two key legislative committees - the Legislative Council and the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee - more reflective of the proportion of the political parties in the legislature.
[Photo: State Affairs Committee members (left to right) Reps. Johnson, Gatto - partly visible - and Seaton on panel. Minority leader Kerttula and bill sponsor Rep. Gruenberg with backs to the camera testifying.]
Right now there is a requirement that there be at least one member of the minority party on each committee. HB 76 requires that there be proportionate representation. The Legislative Council and the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee were established in Statute:
AS 24.20.010. Legislative Council Established.
The Alaska Legislative Council is established as a permanent interim committee and service agency of the legislature. The establishment of the council recognizes the need of the legislature for full-time technical assistance in accomplishing the research, reporting, bill drafting, and examination and revision of statutes, and general administrative services essential to the development of sound legislation in the public interest.
AS 24.20.151. Legislative Budget and Audit Committee Established.
The Legislative Budget and Audit Committee is established as a permanent interim committee of the legislature. The establishment of the committee recognizes the need of the legislature for full-time technical assistance in accomplishing the fiscal analysis, budget review, and post-audit functions.
The standing committees such as State Affairs, Judiciary, etc. already have proportionally representation. Rep. Gruenberg has made the point that when the Democrats were in the majority, the Republicans asked for proportional representation on the standing committees and the Democrats agreed and established that. Standing committees are set up in the Alaska State Legislature Uniform Rules which are established to run the Legislature and are re-established every two years with each new Legislature.
This bill has been introduced regularly since 2003. It was brought up at an earlier session of the State Affairs Committee when there was some vocal objections. But at this meeting today, there was some discussion, but it passed out of the committee with no objection.
The questions today focused mainly on the fact that the Senate is divided by a coalition of Democrats and Republicans in the majority and just Republicans in the minority. (There are ten Democrats and ten Republicans in the Senate.) Even in the House, where the Republicans have a stronger majority, three of the rural Democrats have formed a coalition with the Republicans, in order, I was told, to have more clout in getting expenditures for their districts. So, the questions were about the difference between the coalition majority and minority versus the majority and minority political parties.
The impact in some sense would be more symbolic than substantive. When I was still a staffer, I ran the numbers, and the way the committees are set up, and with the proportion calculations rounding down (1.9 would be 1 not 2) the most that would be required by this bill would be at most three minority members on the twelve member Leg. Council and two minority member on the ten member Leg. Budget and Audit Committee.
With the coalition of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, the current Leg Budget and Audit Committee has two minority party (Democratic) members out of ten. The new legislation wouldn't require more than that. The current Legislative Council has six minority party (Democratic) members - one on the House side out of six and five on the Senate side out of six. In the Senate, the Democrats are part of the majority coalition.
In any case, the bill moves out of the State Affairs and is now scheduled to go to Finance, which is a bit unusual because the Fiscal note on this bill was zero.
Below are my notes from the meeting as it was happening. As always, take them with a BIG grain of salt. I think I've got a reasonable representation of what happened as a whole, but I certainly did not catch everything everyone said, and some that I captured is not always their exact words.
[Photo: Bill sponsor Rep.Gruenberg after it was voted out of committee.]
State Affairs Committee
Open 8:05
Gruenberg: HB 76 Bill which would allow minority representation in the Legislative Council and Legislative Audit and Budget. This is only fair. When the Republicans were in the minority, they asked that the standing committees be proportional and the Democrats agreed. We only have these two committees, which were not proposed [for change] at that time, to change. It would give us one more seat. It’s only fair, sometimes it’s hard for the single member to always be there.
Wilson: Thinking about what could happen. Used to be majority and minority were parties, but now they are not anymore. So possible now that one party could fill all the seats, because of our makeup. We have to be careful.
Gruenberg: Good question. Let’s say we are dealing with the Senate. The minority would be . . .
Seaton: On page 1 last line. We didn’t eliminate the parties, we moved it. I misinterpreted that last time, but it was just moved to section b.
Gatto: Reference at least twice here to two major political parties. An awkward phrase here if we have 15, 15, and ten. What happens if we don’t have one in the lead. Does it upset the proportionality if we have a tie. And then we have a third party that could be clamoring for a seat.
Gruenberg. No question it the two major parties are Democrats and Republicans…
Gatto: Excuse me. Are you speaking for the next 20 years?
Gruenberg: The only time I can think of we had anyone who was not Dem or Rep, was ???
Seaton: I’d point out that in section 1, that is the existing statute and is being removed, so if the language is problematic, it’s problematic in the existing law.
It seems like this has come about because the org of the leg has somewhat changed in function of parties and affiliations have changed and recognizing we have mixed majority and minorities in both parties. While this is offered by the minority, things are really much more even than that. Things change all the time. Even if there was a total political split - all Repubs in majority and all Dems in the minority - this doesn’t complicate anything and recognized that it may be mixed or more separate in the future, but this doesn’t complicate appointment by party to committees.
Lynn: Anyone in Leg Council or LB&A?
[Gatto and Wilson say they are]
Johnson: You have bill now - HB 288, any party that has 2500 members registered becomes a political party, when it passes, 2500 could sign up for a party. Suppose they get elected, where wuld they be. They would not qualify unless they elected enough people to be 25% of the party.
Gatto: What if we had 27 and 7 and 7? If not two major parties.
Gruenber: Neither would qualify, each would qualify for one, the same as if they were in one party.
Gatto: It’s existing language, that we have two major parties, we don’t have two parties.
Kerttula: The way it is, the two major political parties, if you had 25 7 and 7, you’d still have Rep and Dem because the second one hadn’t hit 25%.
Seaton: Unless they organized together, they wouldn’t have a rep.
Gruenberg: 1. As rep seaton said, no change from current law. I think when drafted, they didn’t consider the possiblity and it’s not likely. If there were 26 and two minority parties of 7 each, I suspect they would form together as a minority party and they’d be entitled to two and they would each get one seat. That’s what I would do.
Seaton: I don’t think we should assume that we have the seven joining the majority. Flexibility for the future and how people decide - we can’t resolve all those questions.
Gatto: In statute does it mention Democrat and Republican as the two major parties?
Gruenberg: I don’t think so.
Kerttula: I appreciate the opportunity to speak here before you vote. I’ve been the sole minority member on Leg. Budget and Audit, and it is a very difficult task. It has ten members and I don’t think anyone in this room wants to do without minoirty representation. It’s valuable. It’s part of our democracy. We’ve had a shift to these skewed numbers. We have coalitions now, which seems more Alaskan anyway. It seems this brings things a little closer to true representation. You will never have a skewed vote on the minority size, but they will have a voice. As a member in the minority, I fantasize that the shoe will be on the other foot. And you have my word that we’ll recognize the minority.
Petersen: could we reword page 1, line 9 and 10, could we just say people from each of the two caucuses? Would that solve the problem?
Lynn: I wouldn’t think so. Caucus more political. They change all the time. Changing party is like changing religion.
Wilson: I feel strongly about Leg Council - majority felt it was wrong, and we wanted to come together to fix something. We were not allwed to go back and rethink a decision and we probably should have. that’s why I feel strong about it.
Lynn: Sometimes difficult to seperate what a particular chair does
Seaton: It wasn’t that the chair, in that case (to Wilson). Chair was a member of the majority, but it was a coalition and a member of the majority. We shouldn’t get that confused.
Johnson: This in no way affects standing committees? They won’t become statutory?
G: Correct.
Johnson: Assume that tomorrow, under this situation. Finance committee made up of two co-chairs. Salmon and Joules - would they be the two minority members and then no minority members?
Kerttulla- They would have
Johnson - This has nothing to do with parties, but with coalitions.
Kertulla: Both.
Gatto: Difference between ‘the majority” and “the majority party”?
Kerttulla: Yes. They are mixed. It recognizes Alaska history from before any of us served.
Gatto: If we want to be sure the minority party has representation.
Gruenberg: The way it works now. Requires that there be at least one member from the Dems and Republicans. How internal make up is done is up to how the appointments are made. That is basically from the majority.
Today the makeup of leg council could be three Democrats. if the majority wanted to appoint them. That’s the right of the majority. The difference is that instead of having only one minority party, there would have to be two.
Seaton: This bill talks about major political parties and it shouldn’t. It should talk to majority and minority. Agree with Rep Gatto. We shouldn’t confuse Parties and majorities and minorities.
Kerttula: We want to come a little closer to fairness. I agree with Rep. Seaton.
Gruenberg: On behalf of the entire minority. Aprreciate your hearing it, and hope that regardless of how you personally think about it, I hope you let it advance. It will show 1. that the 26th Legislature is fair, and 2. that the parties can work together and so can the minority and majority can work together for the good of the state. Thank you.
Lynn: Thank you very much. Anyone in audience or online that would like to speak to the bill? Anyone else on the committee?
Gruenberg: Rep. Harris says he supports it.
Johnson: I don’t think. . . I would like to hear that from the Chair himself.
Gruenberg: I strike that.
Lynn: We expect that we trust each other.
Johnson: I don’t mean to impugn Rep. Gruenberg, I’m just uncomfortable hearing someone speak for others.
Lynn: This has been properly noticed and people could come and testify.
Committee discussion:
Jonhnson; Make up of the committees today are 8 - 4 and 8-6.
Lynn: I think the bill is looking at the overall picture, not just today.
Johnson: I just wanted to point out that it’s working today and I don’t want to fix something that isn’t broken.
Petersen: There are only ten on the LBA, so the numbers aren’t right.
Johnson: That includes the alternates.
Gruenberg: Not fair to lump in alternates, because they can never vote. They can’t bolster the vote.
Johnson: Then 8-6 and 7-3.
Petersen: Alternates are there if one is absent or if appointed to another position and isnt’ filled?
Lynn: I don’t know, but I would assume if one can’t be there for any reason.
Gruenberg: We also have alternate on ethics commiteee - strictly by party - and I had a conflict and stepped aside, and he took my place.
Johnson: One thing Rep Gruenberg said, and I agree 100%, I’m not saying that a majority member would necessarily vote with the majority.
Petersen: I would move CS HB76.
Lynn: No objections?
It moves out. I would thank the committee for the thoughtfulness of this committee’s discussion.
Scheduled Tuesday to hear HB 241 - Divestment in Iran, sponsored by Rep. Gatto. On the 11th, hearing with APOC on the impacts of the Supreme Court. Not to debate on how we feel, but whether legislation is needed before the August election.
I'm sorry. I can't help myself. Everyday when I first look out the window, I'm surprised again at how beautiful it is here. Whether it's cloud shrouded or sunny, it's always breathtaking. Here's what I saw as I left for an 8am committee meeting this morning. It made me think of all the rosy fingered dawns I read about long ago in The Odyssey.
Then, as I got close to the Capitol Building - about 2 minutes later - the sun was kissing the peaks across the channel while the lower levels were still enfogged.
And after HB 76 was passed out of the State Affairs Committee (more on that in the next post) I kept seeing glimpses of the mountains and clouds through windows in the Capitol as I wandered around talking to people. Since the sun was out and since I left without breakfast this morning because the alarm didn't go off, I decided I just had to go outside and walk home for lunch.
In the foreground is Capitol Park, just behind and to the east of the Capitol building. Our apartment is in a house the next block above those houses and one block to the right. And, of course, that's Mt. Juneau in the back, with the light and clouds and snow constantly rearranging the view.
And another view of the mountain from our place, with a little boost from the telephoto. The spectacular beauty of this place is addictive.
And a little early lunch in the sun of our kitchen table.
The halls of the Capitol are often crawling with people who are in Juneau to see legislators about some special project, about a favored agency, to argue for or against some law, or a whole host of other reasons. Here are a couple that I caught on camera Wednesday.
Emergency Medical Responders staked out the table just outside the Legislators' lounge and were giving blood pressure tests and explaining to people the services they provide around the state.
Then, later, in the new (this session) staff and public lounge in the Thomas Potter [Stewart] Building, where I've found a new place to blog comfortably, I overheard a group of advocates (I was corrected in an earlier post when I referred to some school children as lobbyists) talking to a legislative staffer and asked them if I could get them to tell me what they are doing here on film.
[Not sure what happened to the video. There's a clip that worked right when I did it, but isn't working right now. I'll see if I can fix it later.]
I posted my running notes of the hearing, (and I've since added a minute of video) but now I'll try to give an overview of what I thought were the key questions raised and the responses as best as I heard and understood them.
I think the basic questions the committee members were asking were:
What Alaska laws are now void?
Are there now fewer restrictions on corporations than on people regarding campaign contributions?
Corporations are a fiction created by the state. If the state creates them, could not the state impose restrictions?
Could a foreign corporation spend unlimited funding to influence an Alaskan election? What about a state corporation owned by foreigners?
Given the session is only 90 days what can we do and what should we do to protect the integrity of the elections? And will your analysis be done before the session is over?
I'm sure that I did NOT catch the answers to these questions completely, but I'll give it a general sense.
What Alaska laws are now void?
The case does not affect
Disclosure laws
Direct contributions to candidate
The case does affect
Independent expenditures for speech (which I understood as issue ads or ads that were done completely independently of a candidate)
Uncertain
Affect on foreign corporations, which apparently - but I'm not sure - were not affected. There are other laws which affect foreign corporations.
Are there now fewer restrictions on corporations than on people regarding campaign contributions?
Since the State of Alaska has banned ALL Corporate contributions including issue ads, there are no disclosure laws for corporations. So, it may well be that corporations have fewer restrictions on them than individuals.
Corporations are a fiction created by the state. If the state creates them, could not the state impose restrictions?
The attorneys said that the Supreme Court said corporations had first amendment rights. It seemed to me that this was a ripe line of reasoning, but that it didn't go in the right direction. Instead, it perhaps should explore creating an entity that isn't a corporation and doesn't have personhood, but has the other abilities that are wanted. Sort of the corporate version of civil union.
Could a foreign corporation spend unlimited funding to influence an Alaskan election? What about a state corporation owned by foreigners?
There are other federal laws that deal restrict some rights of foreign corporations, but this still needs to be investigated to be sure.
Given the session is only 90 days what can we do and what should we do to protect the integrity of the elections? And will your analysis be done before the session is over?
Determine whether disclosure laws apply to corporations under present law. If not, can adding "person" in the right places solve this problem? (See AS 13.15.065 and AS 13.15.135 below)
Check on whether foreign owned corporations or majority owned corporations are affected by this ruling.
Perhaps expand disclosure laws as well as disclaimer laws (which I understood to mean identifying the sponsor on ads themselves. There was a question about how to see the actual funder and not some newly formed group created to hide the source of the money.)
Two specific sections of Alaska Statutes were mentioned (actually I think there was a third ending in 040, but I didn't catch it). One question was whether just adding 'person' to the lists might add corporations to these requirements that now exist for individuals and other groups.
(a) Individuals, groups, nongroup entities, and political parties may make contributions to a candidate. An individual, group, or nongroup entity may make a contribution to a group, to a nongroup entity, or to a political party.
(b) A political party may contribute to a subordinate unit of the political party, and a subordinate unit of a political party may contribute to the political party of which it is a subordinate unit.
(c) Except for reports required by AS 15.13.040 and 15.13.110 and except for the requirements of AS 15.13.050 , 15.13.060, and 15.13.112 - 15.13.114, the provisions of AS 15.13.010 - 15.13.116 do not apply to limit the authority of a person to make contributions to influence the outcome of a ballot proposition. In this subsection, in addition to its meaning in AS 15.60.010 , "proposition" includes an issue placed on a ballot to determine whether
(1) a constitutional convention shall be called;
(2) a debt shall be contracted;
(3) an advisory question shall be approved or rejected; or
(4) a municipality shall be incorporated.
And
AS 15.13.135. Independent Expenditures For or Against Candidates.
(a) Only an individual, group, or nongroup entity may make an independent expenditure supporting or opposing a candidate for election to public office. An independent expenditure supporting or opposing a candidate for election to public office, except an independent expenditure made by a nongroup entity with an annual operating budget of $250 or less, shall be reported in accordance with AS 15.13.040 and 15.13.100 - 15.13.110 and other requirements of this chapter.
(b) An individual, group, or nongroup entity who makes independent expenditures for a mass mailing, for distribution of campaign literature of any sort, for a television, radio, newspaper, or magazine advertisement, or any other communication that supports or opposes a candidate for election to public office
(2) shall place the following statement in the mailing, literature, advertisement, or other communication so that it is readily and easily discernible:
A lot more than this was discussed, but these were the key questions I heard. Quite probably I missed some.
[Picture: John Ptacin (left) and Alpheus Bullard, before the meeting]
Senate Judiciary Committee
Thomas Stewart Building - Beltz 105
1:30 pm
Meeting started promptly at 1:30pm. [I took notes directly on the laptop today. Not sure posting this so raw is a good idea. Read this with the CAUTION that these are my notes as I listened and I couldn't always hear or keep up. Sometimes I had to end sentences best as I could. Question marks sometimes mean I wasn't sure what was said.]
You shouldn't attribute anything written here to anyone. Consider this as a way to get a sense of the discussion. After this, I'll try to post what I think were the key points.
Tom Dosik [Did not attend had death in family] and John Ptacin, Alaska Department of Law
Kathryn Kurtz and Alpheus Bullard
Legislative Legal Services
Bullard: First Amendment Case deals with political speech by corporations. Not about contributions. Only dealing with independent expenditures by corps. Previously, a great deal depended on who the speaker was. Significant in this case that SC has ruled that a Speaker's corporate identity is not longer an allowable distinction.
Upheld various disclosure provisions. Rationale struck down ability to suppress speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity, this bears on our own laws. Those statutes are not repealed, they are void.
Ptacin, Dept. of Law, and I represent APOC.
What laws are not affected: independent contributions to a candidate are not affected. Corps and Unions inability to make direct contributions is unaffected. Didn't interpret Alaska law, but it is affected. States in this area, do not have greater lattitude than congress to abridge the freedom of speech.
Essentially, it did overturn one aspect - ban on any corp or labor union contribution to independent expenditures leading up to elections. Not about candidate contributions. Defined first amendment rights of corps. Court ruled not reason to cut down freedom of speech rights of corps. Court is looking at specific expression and not who is making the expression. In this case making a communication electioneering speech is political speech and that's a high level right??? Govt. tried to make three arguments: 1. Anti distortion of great wealth that has corrosive and distorting impact on the message. No longer an argument. 2. Anti-corruption argument and court didn't agree on this either. 3. Shareholder protection - shareholders powerless to stop the spending of the money. Also down. Without a compelling reason to curtail speech the government's case turned down.
Affects Alaska law, preparing things internally now.
1:44 pm
Kathryn Kurz
Chair Hollis French: Which state laws are now void?
Ptacin: 15.13.067A & 15.13.135 Disallow Corps and Labor Unions from making independent expenditures. Are expenditures alwasy political speech. Some definitions include political speech, some not. Determining extent to which there are probls with current statutes.
Did we have same limitations as feds?
Ptacin: Our law contemplates a ban on all independent expenditures. Not exactly the same as Feds. Trying to determine.
French: We've gone from total ban to what is now a total free for all?
Ptacin: I look at disclosure and I look at indpendent expenditure.
[Left to right on the panel: Sen. John Coghill; Sen. Bill Wielechowski; Chair Sen. Hollis French; Sen. Dennis Egan; Sen. Lesil McGuire. The three attorneys - Kathryn Kurtz, Alpheus Bullard, and John Ptacin - are seated at the table in front.]
Bullard: Allow some corps under Alaska law to make expenditures - non-profits, so not all corps. Window opened is not as large...
French: Any corp doing business in Alaska is free to spend money for or against ....
Bullard: Hard to anticipate how things will be interpreted by our courts.
French: Will it take a specific legal action by a corp or do you deem it void by virtue of Citizens United.
Bullard: When one of our laws is challenged, the court will look, whether the Dept. of Law attempts to enforce....?? Left up to Attorney General to enforce.
Ptacin: We acknowledge the law us subject to scrutiny. An opinion on that point is probably coming.
French: Our opportunity to pass laws is limited to the session. Timing?
Ptacin: We've been working on this since the fall. Attorney General hasn't been asked for an opinion. Can't speculate when forthcoming.
Wielechowski: It seems corps exist because the state allows them to.
?: Corps are a legal fiction.
W: Could not the state impose restrictions
Bullard: Lot of kinds of corporations, difficult.
W: SC said Corps are entitled to free speech, but corps don't exist unless states allow them correct?
Kurtz: There is something that talks to this: any corp formed by.... I think the main thing is that the USSC just defined a right to speech for corps in this area and I don't think the State of Alaska can overturn that.
W: Does the state have to allow corps to exist?
K: The consequences of that declaration would be lively and interesting.
W: If a corp exists and had majority of foreign stockholders, would that corp be able to influence elections?
K: Was addressed by the court - this decision doesn't distinguish between foreign and US corps.
W: Could the another govt. set up a corp in Alaska and try to influence the law?
K: Not an expert in corp law, not comfortable answering.
Ptacin: CU didn't invalidate the law that prohibits foreign corps from speech in candidate elections. We still need to study and give guidance to the state. We have to consider do we want to distinguish between foreign and state corps?
Coghill: Breaks a veil ?
Ptacin: CU (Citizens United) took issue with the PAC /Corp distinction and breaks that down.
Coghill: Still accountability on how to speak?
Ptacin: Correct. Still taking a close look.
Coghill: Laws still more restrictive than individual and we don't want them to be less restrictive.
Ptacin: Disclosure laws - look at persons. Some laws apply to labor unions, some not.
Egan: I'm not an attorney at all. Follow up Coghill.
What kind of corps in Alaska can contribute? 527s ok, but.
Ptacin: Didn't determine that corps can make contributions to candidate directly.
Egan: Do you expect litigation?
Ptacin: Hard to say. I do represent APOC. No current litigation.
Egan: Is APOC staff looking at this independently from DoL?
Ptacin: I work closely with APOC, any advice to AG after talking to apoc.
McGuire: If we don't enact a law dealing with disclosure expenditures etc. for for-proft corps, we could face an election where for-profts are out there in the dark spending whatever amount of money without disclosing what they are doing? I don't see anything that prevents disclosure? If we do anything, we should at least look at disclosure?
Ptacin: This area does require action by legislature - which disclosures apply to corps. Which apply to persons and which not. 040. Labor Unions required to report - D and E.
French: Every individual, person, non-entity, and group. You are putting corps under person? Not individual?
Ptacin: Correct.
French: You brought up, Sen McGuire, the one bulwark against this decision - disclosure.
Bullard: 040 J.
French: take non-group entity out - you're saying it's a non-profit. Disclosures required electronically or on paper?
I think that would be reported on APOC form, on paper.
French: I can imagine we'll be looking at quicker disclosure. They are well healed, great capacity to amass wealth and should disclose as quickly as possible. Shouldn't put burdent on APOC staff to scan disclosures.
Coghill: We've set about to do that, work in progress, have not been able to do that. Heading in that direction.
French: I think you mean disclosures made by candidates?
I think corps are uniquely able to use the internet.
Kurtz: Refert to XXXX? clarifies something.
French: Leaning towards disclosure.
Covered many of the questions I submitted to you. I guess.
One more Q: APOC, concern that disclosre for each individual ads - so viewers understand source of the money. If a group of corps forms "Americans for Jobs" Is there anything that would prohibit requiring disclosure of specific contributors.
Ptacin: Law xxx currently bars contributions that aren't ballot measure groups, that merits scruity, but there is a statue that deals with that. Only spoke about its own entity. Pure speech from its own pocket.
French: Concern, any corp can now advocate for .... CU dealt with single entity. I don't see court limited by that in future case where they form a new corp together to hide the source of the funds used to electioneer. We want citizens to know who the corps are.
Ptacin: I think we hae to atake aim and disclaimer and disclosure law. Spending money from own corp treasury. CU touched on this ...
W: If and what we can do about corps. We allow them to exist. What kind of limits can we place on them?
Ptacin: Disclaimer and disclosure laws constitutional. Laws contemplated in CU are similar to those Alaska imposes. And foreign corp issue also has federal laws. It didn't rule on disclosure, just the actual expenditure.
W: Could we pass a law to say we would not allow corps with foreign majority to campaign?
Ptacin: We have to look at it.
Kurtz: Existing statute 13..... does have some of the things you're talking about 135 - we have some of those requirements, but they don't apply to corps because we didn't anticipate corps making expenditure. We can change those to apply to corps.
French: So we can now write in the word person on that list.
Kurtz: Don't know if it would b3 that simple. We need to be circumspect.
[I'm adding in a bit of video that wasn't ready earlier and fits here I believe]
Kurtz: You could get a challenge there or the Legislature could pro-actively enact legislation in anticipation.
W: Our situation now is that corps have more rights and freedom than individuals under Alaska law?
Kurtz: Not sure.
Bullard: It's possible you could characterize the situation that way. It's hard to know how it will be interpreted by the court.
Coghill: We need to clarify that they dont have more than any individual, though they may be able to speak with a louder voice, but that's been happening anyway in a different venue. Need to make sure that if they speak, we know who is speaking and the cost of that speech, so they are accountable like every other individual. If they have the right to speak, which I tend to agree with, then I want to make sure they meet the requirements that others have to comply with.
W: As I see this, Corps have more rights than people.
2:30 Brief at ease.
2:30 back
McGuire: Roe v. Wade analogy, we don't know how other states respond, it makes sense to start with non-profit, but is there any place for $ threshold? Time line makes it difficult.
Kurtz: That was back in other decision. Contribution limits, but not expenditure limits.
Coghill: Thanks for bringing this up so we can discuss this. F of Speech dear to us all and you can see the tension. We can't say they can't spend their wealth to speak any way they want.
W: Courts ruled and probably the worst decision in my lifetime, but it is what it is and I'm concerned that foreign comapnies and shareholders are not allowed to influence elections in Alaska.
Coghill: We've already be subject to that in many ways through the PAC law. Not sure we can do that, I'd be willing to look into it.
French: read two selections from Stevens: The interests of non resident corporations not in the interest of local citizens. At bottom the courts opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the people . . . strange time to repudiate that common sense. While the US democracy is imperfect, few would .
[Here, I think, are the quotes from the Stevens dissenting opinion:
"the interests of nonresident corporations may be fundamentally adverse to the interests of local voters. Consequently, when corporations grab up the prime broadcasting slots on the eve of an election, they can flood the market with advocacy that bears “little or no correlation” to the ideas of natural persons or to any broader notion of the public good, 494 U. S., at 660. The opinions of real people may be marginalized."
"At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."]
Since I worked late last night, the boss let me sleep in. Got up at 9. Then when I saw the snow on the top half of the Mt. Roberts foothill outside the window I got antsy.
Here there's no snow sticking by the last houses.
And here I am, less than five minutes run from home.
Here's the gate on Basin Road.
Under the canopy.
This wasn't a long run and as you can see I stopped a few times to take pictures. I just went a little past this sign.
So, all you staffers who haven't been out of the building or off the pavement, there's a whole world out there waiting for you to visit. It's spectacular. And it puts things back into perspective. And will remind you there's more important things than the packet for the next committee meeting.
Broadcast Schedule for February 3, 2010
The Sixteenth Legislative Day of the Second Regular Session of the Twenty-sixth Alaska Legislature
NOTE: Due to the nature of legislative activities, this schedule may change without notice.
8:00 am Joint Education Committees
-- Please Note Location Change -- Joint with Senate EDC Overview: Governor's Performance Scholarship
HB297 Postsecondary Scholarships
Live AUDIO STREAMS
10:30 am House Floor Session
Live (Streamed)
11:00 am Senate Floor Session
Live (Streamed)
1:30 pm Senate Judiciary Committee
Hearing on US Supreme Court decision regarding corporate participation in elections. Testimony by invitation only.
Live (Streamed)
I was getting hungry by noon. I'd gotten to the Capitol at 8am for the State Affairs Committee meeting and hadn't had time to make lunch. So I thought I check out the Lunch and Learn session on Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge.
I knew nothing about the speaker until I got into the room. There were lots of sandwiches and every chair had a glossy printout of the powerpoint presentation, which was good because it was on the side wall and hard to see.
Rep. Craig Johnson presented Lincoln Loehr who said he was from a law firm, Stoel Rives LLP, but was not an attorney. A 1998 article, "MANAGING THE WATERWAYS -- TOO CLEAN FOR THE FISH?" that I found online identifies him as "an oceanographer working as an environmental analyst for Heller, Ehrman, White and McAuliffe, Seattle."
More searching found a more recent bio on the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation website that listed members of "a science advisory panel which will evaluate the most technologically effective and economically feasible wastewater treatment options for cruise ships."
Lincoln Loehr: An oceanographer employed in the law firm of Stoel Rives LLP in Seattle as an Environmental Compliance Analyst, his specialty is permitting of municipal and industrial wastewater discharges, and reviewing and commenting on regulatory developments related to such permitting. Mr. Loehr also served on the first Alaska Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharges Science Advisory Panel in 2001-2002. Mr. Loehr will fill the legislatively mandated cruise ship industry seat on the Panel.
This is the panel, if I have this figured out right, that was in the news the other day when Democrats protested the removal of Alaskan Gershon Cohen, who, according to Pat Forgey's article, "has a master's degree in molecular biology and a doctorate in environmental policy."
Rep. Craig Johnson, R-Anchorage, said on the House floor Friday that he opposed having Cohen on the panel, and supported his dismissal.
University of Washington, M.S., Public Administration, 1977
University of Washington, B.S., Oceanography and Geology, 1969
The resume doesn't give us specific work history, so it is hard to tell to what extent he supplemented what is now a 40 year old undergraduate degree with more advanced and more current study. I'm just trying to figure out what exactly his credentials are.
But when I was at the presentation, I didn't realize any of this or have these questions. He went through a lot of technical jargon, nicely mixed with understandable language that left me with the impression that he felt that the cruise lines were not a serious threat to the environment. I recorded some parts and have only edited out a couple of seconds so that when it switches from one shot to the next, it doesn't stop or start mid-sentence. So you can a sense of his comfort talking on the subject. Since I don't have the technical background I can't judge the science.
A Proven Track Record We have handled some of the highest profile federal and state NPDES permitting actions (for new and existing facilities) and section 404 permitting actions (for new and expanding developments) in the West. We work closely with our client's engineers and consultants to find a practical balance between the client's business needs and the scientific and technical challenges of the water quality issue at hand. With this big-picture understanding, we can help clients navigate regulatory constraints so that workable permits can be obtained on schedule.
While we emphasize negotiation and staking out a common ground, the Water Quality Team stands ready to prosecute or defend permit challenges, defend against agency enforcement actions (civil and criminal), and defend citizen suits in order to protect our clients' interests. We possess the legal and technical experience necessary to handle even the most complex water quality cases effectively, and we can help you develop long-term strategies to cost-efficiently resolve water quality issues before they become lawsuits.
And for a different perspective, here's the take on some of these issues from an attorney who bills himself as:
a nationally recognized attorney involved in admiralty and maritime personal injury law. He has been involved in maritime litigation since 1983. Based in Miami, Florida, Jim represents passengers and crew members injured or assaulted on cruise ships.
