Answer to this question is a no-brainer

It is said that you can tell a lot about a person by who his friends are. In a similar vein, you can also tell a lot about a ballot question by who supports or opposes it.

Such is the case with Ballot Measure 1, slated to be decided during Tuesday's primary election. Elsewhere on this page can be found two Spectrum pieces and one letter that present excellent summations of why this common-sense move to limit campaign contributions and place greater restrictions on lobbyists is not only good, but necessary, legislation.

The need for a return to these reforms is so obvious to us that we've dispensed with the usual pro and con statements on this page. Interested readers can find such a presentation at the Division of Elections Web site: www.elections.state .ak.us/ballot_measures.php.

That Alaskans are even forced to weigh in on this again is scandalous in itself. Widespread support for sensible campaign finance laws forced their adoption in 1996. But the big-money forces had the governor and enough legislators in their pockets to get these reforms - and the clear will of the people - overturned in 2003.

So, speaking of big-money forces, let's take a look at who thinks Ballot Measure 1 is a bad idea.

A recent opinion piece in the Voice of Times, the propaganda wing of oil industry services company Veco, adopted a pseudo-concerned tone in railing against the ballot measure. Shamelessly cloaking themselves in the First Amendment, Times propagandists told their readers the initiative is flawed. What they didn't tell their readers is how it can be improved.

The reason for this is simple: Opponents of this measure, such as Times publisher/Veco CEO Bill Allen and the lackeys who do his bidding, are not interested in campaign finance reform. They are not interested in bringing more accountability and disclosure to lobbying. And they're certainly not interested in preserving anyone's First Amendment rights.

What they are interested in is taking the &#8220free” out of freedom of speech and instead putting it up for sale to the highest bidder, which is frequently themselves.

Consider the last four state election cycles. Since 2000, Allen has personally contributed about $121,000 to political candidates and causes, according to the Institute on Money in State Politics, a national nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that tracks political contributions.

Not to be outdone, Veco executives as a whole have given more than three-quarters of a million dollars in the same six-year period. The amount is over and above lobbying and other expenses, such as &#8220consulting” fees paid to the likes of controversial Sen. Ben Stevens, who has helped Veco ensure that its other contributions do not go for naught.

Still, Times writers would have the tiny choir they preach to believe that campaign finance reform jeopardizes freedom of speech and good government. &#8220Measure 1,” they wrote, &#8220is little more than an ill-advised move to fix something that is not broken, for all the wrong reasons.”

Times readers may succumb to this silliness, but we think our readers are more sophisticated than that.

In case anyone is still not convinced, though, we urge you to read the statement of opposition to Ballot Measure 1 on the Division of Elections Web site. It uses the same ridiculous arguments designed to protect the interests of the deep-pocketed and is signed by the founder of a group with the feel-good name &#8220Alaska Excellence in Public Service.”

While we are tempted to ponder how, exactly, the group might define &#8220excellence,” we think it is more relevant to point out that the opposition statement's author is Gloria Shriver, wife of corrupt Republican Party boss and fund-raiser extraordinaire Randy Ruedrich.

Enough said?