Alaska Lawmakers Want Info on Veco Ties From Big Oil
Two Democratic state legislators in Alaska wrote to three major oil companies today asking whether they were involved in Veco's bribe-laden lobbying effort last year on an oil tax law.
Former Veco CEO Bill Allen pleaded guilty to bribing officials to get a reduction in the tax rate for oil companies, hoping it would encourage them to build a lucrative pipeline. During the trial of former state Rep. Pete Kott (R-AK) last week, the prosecution played a tape of Allen telling ConocoPhillips President Jim Bowles about the lobbying effort. On the tape, Allen is heard saying, "Hey Jim, I told you we would-between-with Pete Kott and Ben we wouldn't have a bill. I know you're probably talking to someone else, but remember what I told you. We got it done."
In their letter, the two state lawmakers asked for reassurance from the oil companies that they were not involved:
We do not know if anyone at Conoco Phillips, or any of the oil companies engaged in criminal conduct, and do not suggest such conduct occurred. But we have an obligation to the public to make sure we receive reliable assurances that nobody from your companies participated in the improper influence peddling attempts made in 2005 and 2006.
Comments (10)
anonymouse wrote on September 28, 2007 11:16 PM:Wow... more Alaskan politics.
" We're sorry to bother you, but did any of you upstanding gentlemen break the law? We wouldn't even ask if we weren't under scrutiny from the voters right now, so please do not take this personally. Just say NO and all of us will be off the hook..."
It's pretty easy to see (if this letter is any indication) just who these legislators are representing...
Kuparuk wrote on September 29, 2007 12:31 AM:I think you underestimate the balls it takes for anyone in a political position in Alaska to make direct accusations against the oil industry.
Just as the Bushies will paint anyone who disagrees with the war as "traitors," so do Alaskans paint anyone who appears to be the slightest bit "anti-oil."
The letter is diplomatically worded because these two men are well-educated professionals, written to well-educated professionals. You can't expect something like, "HAI BP UR TEH SUXXORS!!!111lol!"
WT wrote on September 29, 2007 1:06 AM:Guiliani fundraiser funded CA electoral scam
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/09/breaking-news-g.html
BREAKING NEWS: Giuliani fundraiser was mystery initiative backer
A close friend and major fundraiser of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has identified himself as the mystery financer of the proposed California initiative to apportion the state's 55 electoral votes by congressional district instead of winner-take-all.
He is New York hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer. He said he provided the $175,000 to initially finance the petition drive to get the measure on the June 2008 ballot. But as The Times' Dan Morain revealed in an exclusive story on this website last night, the drive has foundered on internal disputes and lack of further financing.
itsjustme wrote on September 29, 2007 1:52 AM:Anonymouse really missed the mark here. Anyone who would cast aspersions on the ethics of Les Gara and Hollis French (and Harry Crawford, too) is COMPLETELY ignorant. Anyone who suggests that they're beholden to the oil companies is COMPLETELY insane. Gara may be the biggest thorn in the sides of the oil companies in Alaska, if the tape recorded conversations in Suite 604 are any indication.
Anonymous wrote on September 29, 2007 5:12 PM:Gara and French are former prosecutors and know what they're doing. Crawford, an ironworker, isn't a lawyer, but he's a pretty smart cookie, too. If Gara, French, Crawford and a few others, like Ethan Berkowitz, had been running the state, we'd be in a way different situation here.
What is Lisa Murkowski's husbands background? Verne Martell, does he have prior convictions?
How many people in Alaska politics are convicted felons or are they just all losers on the run?
JD21 wrote on September 29, 2007 6:39 PM:People are fed up with this.
Maybe that's why Obama is gaining steam. He reminds me of Clinton in '92. Obama now leads Clinton in likely Iowa caucus-goers. Let's not forget Dean, McCain and all the other early leaders who nearly always flame out by the end. Right on the war when it mattered, a uniter and very principled, Obama is a good one to watch.
http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Obama_leads_pack_among_Iowa_likely_0929.html
Steve wrote on September 29, 2007 10:27 PM:I agree with anonymous that the letter does sound timid, but I the (I assume) Alaskans are right about Gara, Hollis, etc. I'd like to think that Alaska is a view of what is to happen in the US as a whole. The Republican lock on the Senate, House, Governorship, and national delegation caused them to think they were untouchable. The Dems - and there are good ones - are so used to being such minor players while the Republican caucus meets in private, are just starting to get their voices back.
Maybe the same rotting on the national level will be exposed the way it is happening here - through trials where some of the dirt is exposed, indisputably, to the world for what it is.
But it isn't just corrupt people, it's a whole system that isn't simply going to go away by electing new people.
ebeneezer wrote on September 30, 2007 12:23 AM:I agree there is systemic corruption in politics but the fact remains you cannot legislate morality. Either public officials come to the job with altruistic motives and integrity to match, or they come to line their pockets.
Life is made up of mega temptations, but every one of us, when presented with one or the other of them, make those hard choices that let us keep looking at ourselves in the mirror.
anonymous wrote on September 30, 2007 12:33 AM:"I agree there is systemic corruption in politics but the fact remains you cannot legislate morality"
I beg to differ.
The reason there are not thousands mmore bank robberies than there is now is directly because of the penalties involved. As long as we continue to allow the politicians to rip off our nation.. they will continue.
On the other hand... if we instill harse punishments (take away retirement... ban from future government positions and lobbying... prison) the crimes will decrease.
I learned a long time ago that folks do not practice unacceptable behavior for two reasons. First, it is against their principles and values. Second, they fear the consequences. If you take away the consequences bad behavior will ALWAYS increase, not diminish.
"You cannot legislate morality" does sound pretty cool, though... IMHO
PalmerBuyer wrote on September 30, 2007 3:00 PM:One of the biggested problems is not 'morality' per se, it is the feelings of 'entitlement' these people have in common, politicians AND oil companies.
Once upon a time they may have been 'moral', but through the years they have ceased to be able to discern the difference between RIGHT and WRONG. They have compromised for so long GRAY areas became BLACK -- and they didn't even notice! (and the voters didn't either!) Again, the sense of entitlement makes them think that because THEY did it, it is OKAY. And they are doing it for 'our' good.
Well, these persons are WRONG. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck -- it is still a duck ---- even if you call it a peacock and try to sell it as such.
Be warned: Alaskans are getting ready to TAKE BACK THEIR STATE. And I praise the internet age to allow COMMUNICATION to take place where 'behind closed doors' was a mantra.
SO, If you can't tell the difference between a duck and a peacock, please don't bother running for office. WE know the difference.