
Seeking to protect the oil industry, the Alaska state legislature has appropriated $1.5 million to fund an astroturf campaign to weaken the Endangered Species Act and put on a conference questioning the listing of polar bears as a threatened species.
Over the objections of some members who warned of "PR damage" to the state, a group of lawmakers late last week decided to move ahead with reviewing bids from public relations firms for the polar bear contract, the Anchorage Daily News reported.
Polar bears were listed as a threatened species in 2008 because of the loss of sea ice due to climate change. Worried that the move would damage prospects for new oil and gas development, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin immediately objected to decision by the Bush Administration.
That same year, Republican state Rep. John Harris proposed putting on a conference for climate change skeptics to fight the polar bear decision. "We want to have the money to hire scientists to answer the Interior (Department) scientists," he said at the time.
That idea became too controversial, but the new conference OKed by the state's Legislative Council amounts to a toned down version of Harris' original idea.

The primary purposes of the conference will be to challenge the listing of polar bears and to determine the best ways to lessen the impacts of the Endangered Species Act for the oil and gas industries.
To do that, a Harris aide told the Anchorage Daily News, the PR firm will "initiate a grass-roots movement" to go to Congress and demand reforms to the law.
The Council is now looking at bids from various PR firms.
Among those interested is Rudy Giuliani, who pitched Harris aide Eddie Grasser on awarding the contract to Bracewell Giuliani, the ADN reported in December.

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

ericf
February 8, 2010 12:32 PM
I'm starting to wonder if conservatives who insist their movements are grassroots really don't get want "grassroots" means. You'd think a government-initiated grassroots movement would sound like a federal local solution, but apparently not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Given Up
February 8, 2010 12:34 PM in reply to ericf
Because to them grassroots=good, and whatever they do must be good so it must be grassroots
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Given Up
February 8, 2010 12:36 PM in reply to ericf
Also, this way all the news networks will call it a state sponsored grassroots campaign, completely unaware of the oxymoron and will hand the conservatives their media victory.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcrose68
February 8, 2010 1:09 PM in reply to ericf
Vizzini: INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
February 8, 2010 12:47 PM
I hope they run out of oil.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
714Day
February 8, 2010 1:02 PM
Sourdoughs should say, "Thanks, but no thanks!" to this squandering of their taxpayer dollars.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
witty1
February 8, 2010 1:05 PM
This pales in comparison to their astroturf effort to guilt Alaskans with "I lost my job to high oil taxes" campaign of late.
These ads claim that due to the higher oil tax legislation that was passed under Palin (despite the bribery) forced the oil companies to cut contracts forcing layoffs.
http://www.facesofaces.org/
The only thing missing from these ads is the little match girl...
The State of Alaska government has become a public relations firm for Big Oil. Most of it is ignorance - small town legislators who are bombarded with misinformation from the rich and powerful. The "keep the feds out" meme has never come from individual Alaskans - its always been big oil, because they don't want the Federal government to look behind the curtain...
Janine Wedel who wrote "Shadow Elite" could spend a lifetime in Alaska detangling the web of "flexians".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jack of All Tirades
February 8, 2010 1:36 PM
Let them secede. Todd can be president and Sarah his beauty queen wife. No more bridges to nowheresville.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Backcountry
February 8, 2010 1:49 PM
It's way past time to cut off government funding for Alaska. Don't they get the most per capita federal dollars of any state? Meanwhile, they issue dividend checks to their residents instead of taxing them and now start up astro truf groups to influence federal legislation.
Time to cut 'em off.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
witty1
February 8, 2010 2:34 PM in reply to Backcountry
That "most per capita" goes mainly to support Alaska Native infrastructure and social systems. Not to mention the high percentage of our population that is made up of military personnel and their families.
Unfortunately, there are a few "whites" or should I say "non-Natives" who exploit this pipeline of no-questions-asked money for their personal enrichment. All that "per capita" is going to a very select few...
I have lived here all my life, I do not get subsidized healthcare in any way, shape or form - in fact, those of us non-natives pay easily 30-50% more for the same healthcare as the rest of the U.S. Every dime we've earned may have come from the Federal government - but we've still earned it as individuals. Its the corporations in Alaska that don't have to pay their way through convoluted property tax exemptions and non-profit subsidiaries that launder private sector profits into non-profit tax exempt organizations.
The dividend checks are an exchange for having no ownership of subsurface rights to property as individuals. If they find oil, gas or gold underneath my house - a Native Corporation owns the rights to it, I get nada even though I put the house on it and paid the property taxes all these years.
Basically, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Most of Alaska is quite self sufficient. The ones that aren't are kept that way to keep that pipeline of federal money flowing.
Its the cost of money that is dividing Alaska and this country as a whole. Some people (homeowners and families) pay usury fees for the use of borrowed money and some people (corporations) pay no fees whatsoever for the use of taxpayer money.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 8, 2010 3:16 PM in reply to witty1
How much of that money for the Native infrastructure actually gets there? Having lived in Hawai'i and witnessed OHA (Office of Hawaiian Affairs) it seems that the OHA people live quite well, those few, and amassed a huge portfolio for the true Hawaiians, yet the people on the years long waiting list for housing, and the native people on leeward O'ahu who are camping on beaches forming their own sovereign state are basically homeless. I was curious if the few lived off the many there as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
witty1
February 8, 2010 4:15 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
Excellent question Marinus van der Lubbe.
Size matters in this instance - Alaska is so large and so remote its nearly impossible to monitor or track overall quality of life and even harder to correlate it to the federal dollars received. That said, quality of life is a relative thing. Some who live in remote cabins with no running water have a fabulous quality of life where someone in Anchorage with running water, bus service and public schools - doesn't.
I believe that the privileged few take their money elsewhere, i.e. condos in Palm Beach or bed & breakfasts in Mexico. Because most Alaskans live paycheck to paycheck and the cost of flying to another city within Alaska is comparable to an L.A to NYC trip... well, I think you get the picture - and as Palin demonstrated some just don't get out much, let alone read.
I see the enormous effort many Alaskan take to get involved, to monitor industries and governments in Alaska but due to the distances find it nearly impossible to compare notes with each other and least of all attract the attention of governing authorities. When they do attract some attention they are drowned out by slick ad campaigns paid for by Big Oil and now obviously - its own representatives who are promised jobs they aren't qualified for, land deals no one else gets, etc. etc. in exchange for their "point of view".
It takes some spectacularly sexy scandal to get the FBI involved - where everywhere else in the U.S. relatively small time public corruption crooks are regularly prosecuted - ours get richer and more powerful each election cycle. The banality of evil wins.
Alaskans were happy to see Uncle Ted get off because the crime he was convicted of pales in comparison to what's really going on up here. Like sending some poor slob to jail for growing pot in his closet while people who siphon millions off of construction projects and grant programs are rewarded for their crimes. We're sick of it and Alaska's culture is sick because the reality is you can't beat 'em so the only way (in many cases) to feed and clothe your family is to join 'em.
Alaska doesn't need more Federal dollars in grants or programs for infrastructure and the like, it needs to get the same level of services of law enforcement that the rest of the country gets.
Alaska Native Corporations and Community Development Quota Programs designed by Ted Stevens set up a system where under the guise of protecting "Native culture" corporations are given special rights that no other corporations are - and even less oversight. My understanding is that the only group tasked with overseeing these special corporations are their shareholders who are defined as impoverished and "disadvantaged" - so they should be solely responsible for tackling corporate abuse?
That's why Halliburton and Blackwater have joint venture (and mentoring) agreements with some Alaska Native Corporations because what used to be illegal as a regular corp isn't anymore... where the inmates rule the asylum.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 8, 2010 4:37 PM in reply to witty1
Thanks for your reply. I had some inkling that the programs were so much smoke as they are in Hawaii. No wonder the senators from both states have some weird link in their voting patterns. The last two territories seemed, in the past, to hang together on some votes when 'Uncle' Ted as you call him was in office. A lot of senatorial back scratching. And as usual, the usual suspects make good, while the other usual suspects get screwed.
Again, thanks for a very informative and non political post.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
witty1
February 8, 2010 5:29 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
There are similar "land grab" efforts by native Alaskan and (linked) Hawaiian organizations that are highly coordinated.
In fact, there are Native Hawaiians who spent many years living in Alaska that are spearheading these efforts in Hawaii now. Native organizations all over the U.S. are being enlisted by Alaska Native Corporations to take political action protecting contracting preferences and the like. Only, the Alaska Native Corporations own the rights to a helluva lot of oil - so the effort is heavily imbalanced by financial might.
Google "Albert Kookesh" "Sealaska" and the "City of Craig" to get a hint at the kind of gangsterism going on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 8, 2010 6:50 PM in reply to witty1
Well, I dont know if you know about the "Bayonet Constitution" in Hawaii where Lili'uakalani was overthrown, the monarchy taken down and the US Navy pretty much used as the strongarm by plantation owners who had married into the royalty and henceforth grabbed huge swaths of land. They basically were an organized monarchy that was stripped and now there are parts of Hawaii where land is leased...doesnt matter if you pay the mortgage for 50 years, the land is still Hawaiian, so when shopping for a house no matter how good the deal, never buy landlease there, only fee simple. I have no idea about Alaska and what the landgrabs are there, but I do know that native Hawaiians have a legitimate beef, even though the OHA reps have their heads embedded in their okoles, and I'm sure you can figure that Hawaiian word out, they do have some rights that need to be addressed. But all that is between the Fed & Hawaii.
I appreciate your information about Alaska. Is the problem that there was no set government/monarchy when land was snagged by lower 48 individuals?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
witty1
February 8, 2010 7:04 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
"Is the problem that there was no set government/monarchy when land was snagged by lower 48 individuals?"
Bingo.
Huge land transfers, divvied up between "regional" corporations where some got land with virtually no harvestable natural resources and some got land with ALL the harvestable natural resources, i.e. oil, gas & minerals.
There is a civil war of sorts going on between these regional corporations because they were required to "share" the proceeds of their natural resource harvests amongst all the regional corps - only there are a lot of exceptions that seem to favor the same corporation over and over again.
Enter ANWR. The portion of ANWR that Alaska's congressional delegation has been fighting to open is not owned by the state of Alaska or the Federal government. It (and its mineral rights) are wholly owned by one single regional corporation and is completely exempt from revenue sharing...
Many of these regional corporations are corrupt, have insidious ties to Wall Street and Washington lobbyists and due to the "protections" put in place at their conception are exempt from any governmental oversight including the SEC. The shareholders are the ONLY line of defense against corruption and well, they are defenseless. There are have been many attempts to overthrow boards of directors (populated by "royal" native families) and are always funded out of shareholder pockets. They aren't even given a printing allowances to distribute newsletters or position statements - all money is controlled by the directors and their power is absolute.
Enter Kookesh - a State Senator AND board member of Sealaska telling a small island city (Craig) that unless they pass a resolution supporting the land transfer to Sealaska for timber mining he might not do his public duty to see they get funding from the State of Alaska.
The problem is in every other walk of American society how they conduct business is considered at the very least unethical and the worst illegal - but in the case of Alaska's regional corporations its not only legal for them, its billed as a "right" attributable to their status as "Alaska's first people".
Ugly, ain't it?
So at the end of the day any and all criticism of this set up is immediately branded "racist", and round and round it goes.
Funny thing is, the race aspect is deemed liberal - the business/finance aspects are conservative. To complicate matters more these regional corporations are getting increasingly more and more non-competitive contracts from the Dept. of Defense.
So, if you don't care about "natives" then surely you care about the "troops"... right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 8, 2010 7:27 PM in reply to witty1
Wow, if this were a movie, I can see Lionel Barrymore as the greedy corrupt land baron....
Very sad, but really a very old sad saw.
So, I have to ask in all of this drama where did Palin as Governor fall? I know her husband is, according to the press, part native Alaskan, yet during the election cycle mayhem she was portrayed as short sheeting native interests where it came to Family Practice/Women's health and pregnancy. Is this due to her stance on abortion? Or was this smoke and mirrors? Enquiring minds need to know.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
witty1
February 8, 2010 8:40 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
I think that Palin was painted as "anti-Native" because her and Todd (as a Native) did not acquiesce to the demands of a few powerful Native corporations which is typical when anyone doesn't do exactly what they want, when they want it.
They have a habit of twisting "bleeding heart" issues to paint themselves as victims (the corporations not Native individuals). It should be pointed out that in many of these rural communities there are MANY non-Natives - so to claim that rural poverty is solved through the funding and preservation of Native culture alone is misguided at best.
They get billions in non-competitive, sole-source contracts but when they sent a delegation of 500+ Natives to meet with Obama they claimed the largest issue facing their communities is "global warming" specifically its impact on their cultural whaling endeavors. Not, of course, the billions of dollars in no-bid contracts, and grants for economic development.
Yeah right.
I should say that I am most angry about this twisted tribalism crap because I grew up with mostly Native people and it wasn't until recently that they've been regarded as "disadvantaged" or in need of special treatment - we always thought they had a high quality of life due to their cultural heritage, now that same heritage is being billed as not good enough to compete in the modern world - I say bullshit. They may be even better equipped to deal in the modern world BECAUSE of the culture not in spite of it.
Most of what I've said is of course a generalizations there are many varied Native cultures in Alaska and none of them are exactly the same as the next.
Finally, I think funding an opposition to Polar Bear protection is stupid. If Big Oil wants to fight it - they should pay for it themselves. They are just trying to adopt the (dubious) legitimacy of the Alaska Legislature because any research submitted by their own scientists will be painted as biased.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 8, 2010 10:30 PM in reply to witty1
Whew...what drama!
Thanks for your response, truly an eye opener.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
patmcgrowen
February 8, 2010 10:11 PM in reply to Backcountry
I have wondered that idea many times, not just Alaska but in general Red States receive more from the Federal government and Blue States less.
The winners
1. New Mexico(D)---$2.03
2. Mississippi(R)---2.02
3. Alaska(R)--------1.84
4. Louisiana(R)-----1.78
5. West Virgina(R)--1.76
6. North Dakota(R)--1.68
7. Alabama(R)-------1.66
8. South Dakota(R)--1.53
9. Kentucky(R)------1.51
10.Virgina(D)-------1.51
The losers
40. Massachusets(D)-0.82
41. Colorado(D)-----0.81
42. New York(D)-----0.79
43. California(D)---0.78
44. Delaware(D)-----0.77
45. Illinois(D)-----0.75
46. Minnesota(D)----0.72
47. New Hampshire(D)-.71
48. Connecticut(D)--0.69
49. Nevada(D)-------0.65
50. New Jersay(D)---0.61
Source:tax foundation, census bureau
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html
I think it is interesting these states who love to hate socialism sure don't mind the wealth being redistributed to their state. Maybe states should just get dollar for dollar. If I was California, I sure would be crowing. It sure looks like Blue states support the Red states, I think some serious re-considerations may need to be made.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
February 8, 2010 2:40 PM
"We want to have the money to hire scientists to answer the Interior (Department) scientists," he said at the time.
**Sigh**
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Winski
February 8, 2010 4:26 PM
So this means that Rep. John Harris IMMEDIATELY goes on the Terrorist Watch and the TSA NO-FLY list - permanently.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ignoreland
February 8, 2010 4:27 PM
I don't see any problem in setting myself up as an expert, taking their money, going to the conference and not showing up for the program. Or 'getting religion' on the podium and using my time to advocate for climate legislation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sailormarlowe
February 8, 2010 5:03 PM
There is plenty of room for Alaska's "endangered species"--right next to the mashed potatoes & sourdough biscuit. YeeeHaaaaah.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
February 8, 2010 6:48 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
You have to check the notes on your hand for that one?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Man MKE
February 8, 2010 5:09 PM
> The primary purposes of the conference will be to challenge the listing of polar bears and to determine the best ways to lessen the impacts of the Endangered Species Act for the oil and gas industries.
Simply despicable. Remember, only you can prevent polar bears. Of course, what they ought to be addressing are the best ways to prevent the oil and gas industry from further endangering all species on Earth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AirBoss
February 8, 2010 5:20 PM
Astroturf to Nowhere?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
atomspiegel
February 8, 2010 5:49 PM
Head on over to shannynmoore.com she just put up a post on this that really spells out whats going on up there in Alaska.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dredd
February 8, 2010 7:20 PM
They seem to want to make the human species endangered by ignoring what is happening before their very eyes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LAB
February 8, 2010 7:30 PM
Fine, but with your own dime, AK. Not ONE dime from the rest of the US taxpayers that send you leaches almost two bucks on every dollar you send to the Fed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PaddyMac
February 8, 2010 8:34 PM
I was going to go to Alaska in the next few years to sightsee, but not if this is the way they treat their valuable and threatened wildlife. Environmental groups need to band together and campaign to "BOYCOTT ALASKA" until this idiocy is reversed. Huge number of environmentalists and birdwatchers, hikers, fishermen, etc. visit the state each year. We need to get the work out and band together. Once their tourist industry gets the message, pressure will build on the oil lobby.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
witty1
February 8, 2010 8:53 PM in reply to PaddyMac
Just a little bit of funny that environmentalists boycotting a trip to Alaska in protest...
Think of the jet fuel saved by staying home, not the "fuck you Alaska" protest you describe. Not to mention the fisher's boats creating constant wakes and bank erosion along the rivers...
Just sayin. "Less is more" is the right thing to do, not the political thing to do.
The reality is the less people trampling around Alaska's wilderness the better shape it will be in for the long haul - regardless of political ideology.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nancy Irving
February 9, 2010 3:15 AM
They say that houses in Alaska are sinking into the ground because the permafrost is receding.
But they don't seem to care. Just give us oil profits!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shannyn
February 9, 2010 3:30 AM
Ooooh, but there is so much more....http://shannynmoore.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/1-5-million-astro-turf-seeds-for-alaska/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?