We all know that big money buys access and influence in politics -- that's a big part of why so few people trust their elected officials to represent their interests, in Juneau or in Washington. Whether the issue is health care reform, Wall Street bailouts or energy policy, those who write the big checks tend to get a good return on their investment.
Sometimes, they even get to get to write their own laws.
That's the troubling appearance for Sen. Murkowski and the big-money lobbyist who helped draft and promote energy legislation on her behalf. According to reports in this newspaper, the Washington Post, and others, powerful energy lobbyist Jeff Holmstead advised Murkowski's office on the exact wording of a failed 2009 amendment that would have rolled back the Clean Air Act, blocking the EPA from imposing greenhouse gas limits on electric power plants.
Now, Sen. Murkowski is considering introducing the same, or a similar amendment, to unrelated "must-pass" legislation. Discussions on said amendment could begin as early as Jan. 20.
Alaska is on the frontline of global warming: Melting permafrost, coastal flooding, and erosion are already pressing issues here, not to mention the huge economic costs of melting ice roads and damages to Alaska's infrastructure. Sen. Murkowski herself says that she's concerned about climate change. But until the senator shows herself to be a real leader in pushing for the kind of broad legislative solutions she claims to prefer, it's fair to ask why she insists that the agency with the mandate and the expertise to begin tackling this problem head on should be stripped of its authority to do so.
But aside from these important issues, and they are important, the most troubling thing about this situation is the appearance of the big-money influence. According to research by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Sen. Murkowski has received at least $126,500 from the clients, clients' employees, and the lobbying firm that employs Mr. Holmstead since 2004. Overall, electric utilities are Sen. Murkowski's biggest corporate campaign contributors, adding $244,000 to her election efforts since 2005. During the current 2009-2010 election cycle, Sen. Murkowski has received more electric utility money than any other lawmaker.
Sen. Murkowski has pointed out that Mr. Holmstead was only one source of input sought on this subject, and that as a former EPA official, he has considerable legal expertise. Industry groups are also quick to point out that environmentalists are also involved in crafting climate legislation. Both of these arguments are true and reasonable to a point. It's certainly common practice for elected officials to seek out advice and input from issue experts when drafting bills. That sort of thing happens all the time, with non-profits, academics, government agencies and former administration officials alike. But when corporations make big campaign contributions, and then their lobbyists are handed the pen to write legislation that could benefit the corporation's short-term bottom line, it just doesn't look right. To get rid of the appearance of this kind of pay-to-play politics, Sen. Murkowski could do two things: She could abandon her pursuit of legislation that would that would prevent the EPA from taking a step forward on climate change. Or, she could give back all of the money received from special interests tied to Mr. Holmstead, along with all the other corporate contributions tied to lobbyists seeking to influence crucial energy policy decisions.
In an ideal world, she would do both.
Matt Wallace is executive director of the Alaska Public Interest Research Group in Anchorage.
By MATT WALLACE