BP woes show hazards of big money

BP's shutdown of North Slope oil production this past week has rekindled some serious concerns about lingering safety and regulatory issues. As Alaskans - and all Americans - await answers, it is prudent to heed the messengers with a heaping dose of skepticism.

Some quick numbers for context:

€ BP, a multinational corporation that recorded profits of nearly $20 billion last year, has spent millions and millions of dollars in recent years on warm and fuzzy advertising designed to convince Alaskans how much better their quality of life is because BP does business here.

€ The corroded pipes responsible for the shutdown were designed to last 25 years. Despite the fact that they are 29 years old and regulators say they should have been inspected every five years, the section closed by BP hadn't been inspected since 1992.

In the wake of the shutdown, fingers couldn't be pointed fast enough. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, in a swing through the Valley last week, was quick to criticize BP for its lack of monitoring and maintenance. Her comments followed similar criticisms from her father, Gov. Frank Murkowski, and President Bush.

Given the growing body of documentation outlining regulatory and enforcement laxity at both the state and federal levels, such criticism seems more transparently like an act of posterior covering than anything else. So to the growing list of questions being asked in the wake of the shutdown, Alaskans should add this one: Is it time to consider more stringent regulation and enforcement measures in our oil fields?

These are bad words in the world of big business. Under the feel-good banner of &#8220get government off the back of business,” hundreds of millions of dollars are spent by business interests lobbying for less government oversight. The payback is tangible.

Anyone who wonders how it could be possible for state and federal lawmakers to abdicate their regulatory responsibilities needs only to follow that industry money. In the four federal election cycles since 2000, the oil and gas industry has pumped a whopping $96 million into campaign war chests - 80 percent of that to Republicans - according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, D.C., organization that tracks money in politics.

That kind of money surely buys a lot of clout on Capitol Hill.

It was no surprise, then, that Sen. Murkowski, as she leveled her criticisms at BP, failed to mention the $205,163 in campaign contributions she accepted from the industry in 2004. That amount, incidentally, is just a portion of the $736,653 that industry has heaped on Alaska's congressional delegation since 2000.

At the state level, as Gov. Murkowski did his best to sound serious in his own criticisms of BP, he, too, was silent about the $84,191 in oil industry contributions the Institute on Money in State Politics says he received during his 2002 campaign.

How does BP fit into this picture? The Center for Responsive Politics further notes that in four elections since 2000, the company has pumped $2.2 million into political campaigns. Fellow North Slope producer Exxon Mobil added nearly $4 million of its own to that total. ConocoPhillips, the third state producer, has contributed $534,955 in the two elections since the merger that created the company.

Alaskans who wonder how their interests can compete against that kind of money are right to be concerned. With cash being the lifeblood of politics, it is unreasonable to expect rational campaign finance laws to come from those who benefit from such contributions.

On Aug. 22, though, Alaskans have an opportunity to weigh in on the matter. Ballot Measure 1, which seeks to reduce the influence of deep-pocketed contributors and the lobbyists who represent them in Juneau, is up for a statewide vote. A yes vote will be a big step in the right direction.

Find out more

Center for Responsive Politics: www.opensecrets.org

Institute on Money in State Politics: www.followthemoney.org

Who's giving to state candidates?: www.state.ak.us/apoc