Harris bill raises stink level alert in Capitol halls

MYRL THOMPSON/Juneau Report

Warning: This may be an especially peculiar Juneau Report. I think I may have cabin fever or something … those of you who have read my reports over the years, will certainly understand. In particular, I blame Reps. John Harris and Jay Ramras, a dream about a hog and a long ago trip.

You'll see the connection soon enough.

On hog farming and ethics bills

Many years ago, I was traveling with my girlfriend on a cross-country genealogical field trip that included stops in the out-of-the-way towns that made up part of her family heritage. One particular Midwest town left an imprint on my memory that I have never forgotten.

The name of the town has long escaped me, but a particular odor that preceded our arrival by quite some miles never did. We were dumbfounded by that smell, which seemed only to grow stronger as we neared a predetermined spot on our itinerary. Our eyes were literally watering, and it seemed that all the oxygen had been sucked out of the air by the time we arrived at our destination.

As our car slowed to a stop at a small store directly in front of a group of locals wearing bib overalls, one of the men pointed to our Alaska license plates, and all eyes were directed to my girlfriend and me. As soon as we exited the car we were bombarded with obviously genuine questions.

&#8220Are you folks lost?” &#8220Are you from Alaska?” &#8220What are you doing way out here?”

Before either of us answered their string of questions, we both blurted out, simultaneously, &#8220What's that smell?”

Without so much as a blink of an eye, the largest of the old fellows said, &#8220What smell?”

That was the start of a very eventful and interesting day. These folks had never met Alaskans, and we had never met hog farmers before.

We soon found ourselves talking, laughing and exchanging tall tales about our lives and homes. (My girlfriend's family name in this town was &#8220Harris.”)

Now, to tell you the truth, I had not thought about that day for some years - at least not until I was sitting in a House State Affairs Committee hearing here in Juneau last week. Listening to Rep. John Harris trying to explain his House Bill 6 on ethics to the committee brought it all clearly - and pungently - back to mind. It was as if I were reintroduced to that smell again - the more he tried to explain the bill, the stronger the odor became.

Harris's fellow majority members present weren't wearing bib overalls, but I just knew if I had asked the question, they would have said, &#8220What smell?”

The more I listened to his story about the need for his bill, the more red flags shot up in my mind. There were so many that I could have flagged down one of those hog trains in that Midwestern town.

It reminded me of the tall tales those three hog farmers obviously enjoyed telling my girlfriend and me. At least the farmers would occasionally wink and laugh to let us know they were pulling our legs.

The legislators, on the other hand, wanted the people present to believe that they were addressing solid ethics principles. I suspect that their actual motives on this particular bill are about as pure as the air in a certain hog-farming town.

Here in Juneau, saying one thing but secretly meaning another is second nature, and it causes not even a bat of an eyelash. Maybe it is common in all capital cities: that ability to put a white silk dress and lipstick on a hog and act as if nothing is out of the ordinary.

Perhaps it is in the Harris genes.

HB 6 &#8220An act relating to political contributions”

This is the Harris bill, but it could have easily been straight from the mind of Randy Ruedrich. What started out as just one bad idea has blossomed into five, with the exception of a few subsections. The bill ignores Enron-type problems, but reins in the mom and pop corner store.

Section 1 adds the principal occupation and employer of each contributor to the record keeping, even if it is a dollar donation.

That additional information was required before only for contributions more than $250. The result probably will cause smaller contributors to not contribute as often. This will hurt smaller parties, nonpartisans and independents. Imagine someone sending you a $25 check for a campaign donation, and you have to write them back and ask for their occupation and employer.

Section 2 requires groups to report all contributors' names, addresses, principle occupations and employers, no matter how small the individual contribution. Before, if the contribution was $100 or less, only the amount was reportable. It seems a certain political party wants to mine more information. One can only guess how that would be used. Small donors are the least of the problem in political campaigns.

Section 3 removes the possibility of filing &#8220exempt” for candidates who raise and spend less than $5,000 dollars on a campaign. They have been exempt for years. The exempt candidates never have been a problem. They rarely win, and there are very few of them in any given campaign.

I'm sure this section has nothing to do with allowing a certain candidate to find out who all those Republicans were that voted against him in a primary. Didn't curiosity kill the cat?

Section 4, adds more restrictions on all non-group entities. It adds the occupation and principle employer requirement to all small contributors to the nongroup entity. Currently, such information is required only of contributors who give more than $250. There is only one such nongroup in the state: the Alaska Conservation Voters, which offers campaign training to political candidates. I guess too many of the trainees beat their majority party incumbents.

Section 5 reduces the amount a group that is not a political party can give to a candidate. The initiative just approved by voters in November already did this very thing, except the initiative also reduced the amount a political party can give. Not wanting to leave well enough alone, the sponsors have decided to monkey with the recently passed initiative and lower group contributions again, but left their own party contribution numbers as is.

How nice of them.

This hurts nonparty candidates, labor unions and other such groups. The irony here is many of this bill's sponsors were the same ones who grossly raised the contribution limits to begin with. If they cut party money to candidates, then this section would seem a little more serious. Of the 13 or more ethics bills on file, HB6 is by far the most hypocritical and least-needed bill of the bunch. It is a highly partisan bill, to say the least.

I have only touched on the absurdity of it all. There are still no bills to address real ethics issues, like closed-door meetings, out-of-district lobbyist donations or out-of-state money in local elections and much more. Imagine that!

The good, the bad, and the ugly

Paul Seaton's mixing-zone ban bill passed out of House Fisheries, and it's heading to House Resources.

Les Gara's bill to move the Habitat Division from DNR to Fish and Game is on hold in House Fisheries.

Jay Ramras quote from just outside of the House floor: &#8220Myrl, you better watch what you say about people in this building.”

Sundry Things

John Coghill, Max Gruenberg and Bob Roses are doing tough work in the ethics subcommittee. They have their work cut out for them, to say the least. It may not be the most exciting committee to watch, but they are all doing yeoman's work. Whether it will produce good legislation is up to committees down the pike and the end product.

Good questions from those on Huggins' Resources Committee, including Charlie, to the big three oil companies. Committee members don't always ask tough questions or even the right questions, but this committee did. The answers, however, were generally less than satisfying or enlightening.

Friday the 16th, there were no Senate committee meetings and only seven senators showed up for a 10 a.m. floor session, it had to be reduced to a technical session because of lack of members. The House side had no floor session, and not much going on in committee either. Tell me Monday isn't a holiday!

Remember that 90-day session thing.

Yes, BP is going to write off the replacement of those corroded pipes to a tune of $11 million, but since they only own about a quarter interest, the cost to the state could be more than $40 million. Always give credit where credit may not be due.

Valley resident Myrl Thompson is a citizen lobbyist and Capitol watchdog who is in Juneau for the legislative session. His Capitol Watch guest opinion column will appear here every two weeks. To contact him or to find out about subscribing to his weekly Juneau Report, e-mail myrl@ak.net.