The Alaska Sea Party is calling foul on the Vote No on 2 campaign’s out-of-state campaign contributions, but the opponents are saying the concerns are nothing but “overblown rhetoric.”
The Alaska Sea Party, which sponsored the initiative to resurrect a Coastal Management program in Alaska accused foreign corporations of trying to “buy this election any way then can.”
The Sea Party based its claim on an analysis of campaign contributions so far which show that while it is likely to be outspent ten to one, 99.7 percent of the money in favor of the initiative comes from Alaska, while 69.3 percent of the Vote No on 2 money comes from Outside.
“Our concern is that so much of it is coming from corporations that are headquartered outside Alaska and are clearly intended to shape one aspect of how as Alaskans we chose to govern ourselves,” said Bruce Botelho, co-chair of the Alaska Sea Party and mayor of Juneau.
The biggest single largest contributor is Shell, which is a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell, based in The Netherlands.
Vote No on 2 spokesman Willis Lyford said there was nothing wrong with companies that employ thousands of Alaskans having a say on a ballot measure that will affect them.
The Sea Party analysis showed that of the “Alaska” portion of the “Vote No on 2” money came 92 percent from the Alaska Miners Association and the Resource Development Council.
Lyford said those groups represent Alaskans.
Botelho’s co-chair, Terzah Tippin Poe, in a press release announcing the analysis, called the prospect of outsiders trying to buy an election “stunningly blatant, arrogant and aggressive.”
Lyford, though, said the Alaska Miners Association is made up of individuals such as small Alaska placer miners.
“She’s thrown them under the bus too, with this assertion about big outside operators,” he said.
And he pointed out that one of the big outside companies involved in opposing Ballot Measure 2 was Hecla Mining Co., owner of Juneau’s Greens Creek Mine.
“Hecla is the largest single tax payer in the borough, the largest single employer and a 75-percent Alaska-hire employer,” he said.
Botelho acknowledged there were some Alaskans in the two resource groups that opposed the measure, but questioned where their campaign donations were.
“It would be good if those individual Alaskans were contributing,” he said.
• Contact reporter Pat Forgey at 523-2250, or at patrick.forgey@juneauempire.com.
Comments (11)
Add commentBig Oil
After seeing the ads against Ballot Measure No. 2, you can almost hear Big Oil coming out of their mouths, but they won't admit. These tv ads sure can convince some people that it isn't a good measure, what Measure 2 does is give our coastal communities a say in any development along our coast line. Otherwise without this measure, the coastal communities don't have a say in the decision process.
Money from Outside
Outside money is a fact of life in Alaska. Federal employees who donate to either side of this race or any race are using Outside money as a source even if those employees now qualify as Alaska residents under many definitions. Many Alaska environmentalists tend to be remittance people who receive money from family interests Outside; money from those sources is no different from money paid by the parent company of a mining, tourism or oil company based Outside and doing business here. Employees of companies that receive federal grants or work as contractors for the federal government are using federal money as a source if they donate to a cause or candidate, and federal money is Outside money so far as influence. Therefore, comparisons of what percentage of each faction's funding comes from Outside are meaningless.
Miners work hard and earn every dime they are paid; federal employees not so much. If Alaska mining families vote against this ballot measure then I will defer to their knowledge about what is best in protecting their jobs.
Uh-oh, someone sounds
Uh-oh, someone sounds desperate...
Here's a very informative statement given by a citizen at the Barrow Public Hearing in July -
http://ltgov.alaska.gov/treadwell_media/czmp/fredriksson-barrow.pdf
A small excerpt -
"Make no mistake if Ballot Measure #2 is passed by the voters it will not be easy to fix or correct the many deficiencies even the supporters of the measure are starting to recognize. To correct the deficiencies will require substantive amendments that we can’t rely on the legislature to make. I don’t believe the legislature would be easily convinced that the voters passed a law they knew to be full of holes and problems they expected the legislature to fix.
With no clear rules or legal requirements similar to Alaska’s previous coastal management law, Ballot Measure #2 will create uncertainty and disagreement that is sure
to invite legal battles that will frustrate the needs of coastal communities and delay or tie up resource development projects in courts for years."
Fredriksson's (link) statements were very compelling.
Just goes to show an articulated argument can be more persuasive than soundbites and glitzy commercials.
Here's a tip: When given a chance by a regional newspaper to expound on one's position take it. Try to avoid the more colorful "stunningly blatant, arrogant and aggressive" prose.
Or was it the reporter looking for the soundbite to match the prose.
Our Coast our VoiceAlaska
Our Coast our Voice
Alaska has the largest coatline AND we are the only coastal state that does not have a seat at the table. This is wrong.
Trying to block Alaskans having a voice is also wrong.
Vote yes on 2 its our coast & and our voice
Can it be fixed?
I am still not sure I'll vote for this, but I do know that we NEED a Coastal Management program. Even many of the No on 2 folks realize that.
The 2 questions I need answered are [and #1 is not an easy one to assess]:
1. If we vote no on this because of some weaknesses that have been discovered in the language, how long will it be before we can get a Coastal Management program in place? (And what will happen in the meantime with no state voice and only the feds in power?)
2. Can the language that is less-than-optimal be changed by the legislature or will it have to be another vote?
disagree, glacierdogs
"Miners work hard and earn every dime they are paid; federal employees not so much."
Assuming there are no hardworking federal employees - or no slacker miners - belittles your argument.
Glacier Dog
I happen to come from a family where several men are master plumbers. Out of the four of them two work as individual contractors and two of them work for a university or a government agency.
Surprisingly to you perhaps, they all seem to work just as hard as plumbers regardless of whom their employer is.
I know some other craftsmen, hard working people, and some work for a business, are individual contractors, or work for a government agency - but they all seem to be as hard working as each other but in their own way.
Maybe even miners who are prospectors who work on their own and those who work for a corporation, do the same kind of things in the same way.
I even know some medical doctors who work in private clinics and some who work for SEARCH or some other agencies. I think they all practice the art of medicine as best they can.
And so when you say "Miners earn every dime they are paid:federal workers not so much" Appears to be a rather stupid distinction with no basis in reality.
I'm glad you put it as your opinion, because it is simply that, your opinion and not a verifiable fact.
Hang in their, I think I saw your photo a while back in the Empire when they had an article on "Glacier Dogs." I never realized you were able to text while working.
Your paradigms are showing...
Middle and Wally, your paradigms are showing!
I don't know Glacierdog's intent, but he does use a semicolon to link two independent clauses with no coordinating conjunction; thus the second clause could be relying upon the verb in the first.
In that case, he may be saying that federal employees don't "earn as many dimes" as miners, which is certainly true according to published AKDOL numbers for average wages by occupation.
You may be right that an insult was intended, but it's interesting that you would both jump to that conclusion without considering an alternate possibility.
Glacierdog, care to settle the matter for all of us?
glacierdogs
What do you do to earn your money?
Nice try, watchdog
I appreciate the grammar challenge - I really do.
But given the lack of the words "as many" (dimes), it seems his intent was clear.
The second clause is "fed workers not so much."
The lack of a conjunction could link it to 'work hard' or 'earn every dime' but it doesn't use a comparison such as " as many."
Thanks for brain workout before coffee.