April 1, 2007
When I was just a young lad, one of the first experiences that totally bewildered me was seeing housewives, about my mother's age, in a fevered pitch throwing their undergarments on the stage during a Tom Jones concert. What was even worse, my own mother was entranced by his performance, his dress and his electrifying voice.
|
|
I really haven't seen anything quite like it since. That is, until this past week, when I was going over some of the political contributions to Speaker of the House John Harris from the 2006 campaign season.
Harris may not parade through the halls of the Capitol in tight pants and a shirt unbuttoned down to his navel, and he likely lacks Jones' talent for song and dance. But when it comes to having housewives throwing things in his direction, it turns out that Rep. Harris has one-upped even Tom Jones.
While Jones had some underwear flying his way, Harris has gotten housewives to throw $500 and $1,000 checks his way to the tune of more than $14,000 dollars.
Now I ask you, who is the real superstar?
I'm here to tell you that Harris is the new darling of the Alaska “housewife,” not to mention a few from out of state, too. It turns out, though, that these aren't just your average cake-baking, family-raising spouses.
Although they are legally listed as only “housewife” on the occupation and employer portion of Rep. Harris' campaign contribution report filed with the Alaska Public Offices Commission, there is more there than meets the eye. Most notably, had their husbands given the exact same donations themselves, some would have been illegal and others would have attracted added scrutiny and at least a question or two.
That's because Harris' harem of housewives is actually made up of spouses of deep-pocketed husbands who understand the power Harris has as speaker of the House to influence legislation. They are the spouses of doctors with involvement in political matters, wives of lobbyists who are forbidden to donate to these same candidates, wives of businessmen and corporate executives, wives of political action committee members, and about everything else except what the word housewife usually conjures up.
Don't get me wrong, there is nothing actually illegal with these donations because there is a loophole in the disclosure law that allows these wifely gifts.
It is illegal for a lobbyist to give an out-of-district contribution to a legislator. But it's not for their spouse. It is illegal for a corporation to contribute to a candidate, but if the corporation gives a “bonus” to an executive, then they and their spouse can pass it on without any problem as individuals.
If the contribution exceeds $250, the executive would have to list his employer and occupation. His wife, however, can contribute $1,000 and give nothing but “housewife” as an explanation. There would be no way of knowing any connection in the latter instance to any special interest by an unknowing public.
To be fair, Harris is not the only legislator benefiting from this inadequacy in the law.
In the new ethics legislation pending in the House, Harris and many others call for full disclosure. Of course, no one even mentions closing this gaping loophole. It's pretty easy to understand why, too.
Here is what I promise you won't see in the new ethics package: full disclosure of a spouse's connection; elimination of out-of-state contributions to candidates; or more restrictions on out-of-district contributions. All of these things together would clean up much of the problems with the perceived buying of government officials.
Limiting contributions to donors from a legislator's own district would be the simplest and single most effective cure for the unchecked influence of money in the political process. It would ensure that the politician would have to campaign in their own district, it would even the playing field and ideas would win out over dollars spent.
The system now is broken. Innovative and fresh ideas are scarce in campaigns, and many politicians even avoid debates in their own district. Instead, they use money raised elsewhere to speak for them through sometimes seemingly endless and mindless campaign advertisements.
With a few simple changes to campaign finance laws, the public trust would begin to return and elected officials would have little choice but to do what is best for the people they are supposed to represent. Gone would be the influence of money that turns a legislator's common sense into blind, obedient advocacy for what is usually a bad deal for Alaskans. In turn, the special interests themselves would have to have an idea worthy of consideration and fair to Alaskans if they expect it to become law.
Alaskans deserve no less.
Valley resident Myrl Thompson is a citizen lobbyist and former independent candidate for state House. He writes a twice-monthly “Capitol Watch” column for the Frontiersman. For information about receiving his weekly e-mailed Juneau Report, contact him at myrl@ak.net.
Comments
12 comment(s)nexQuimimip wrote on Feb 14, 2009 3:07 PM:
Donna wrote on Feb 6, 2009 7:14 AM:
I would like to contact him if anyone can get him my e-mail address it would be greatly appreciated.
Donna J. Hoover (formerly Donna J. Groleau) "
Halcrow wrote on Nov 8, 2008 2:27 PM:
Alas, even if it should make its way over to corporate Diebold, it'll be dismissed as the irrelevent raving of an unrecognized voter (unrecognized, courtesy of Diebold). Only in America. "
Pantloath wrote on Jul 1, 2008 10:39 AM:
Nifoziyf wrote on May 1, 2008 7:36 AM:
About respect Administration of a portal "
Hixintori wrote on Apr 15, 2008 9:04 PM:
meridias capital
G'night "
Alfagreyus wrote on Apr 13, 2008 10:43 PM:
Without taking into account the issue of establishing a stone by God, which he won't be able to pick up, how do you think, may be something in this world, what can God never see? "
Jourgenz wrote on Apr 2, 2008 1:24 AM:
I could't post a message... "
chris wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:56 AM:
Goomy wrote on Jan 19, 2008 2:26 PM:
Thanks google "
Tedeldemijamb wrote on Jan 15, 2008 1:51 AM:
Best jewelry links! "
Nancy France wrote on Dec 14, 2007 11:39 AM: