What was supposed to have been a day trade turned into a headache for Rep. Jay Ramras last week, when Conservatives 4 Palin blogger Rebecca Mansour took him to task for a $172,000 investment in BP. Ramras, a critic of Palin's Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA), bought the stock in 2008 about a month after voting against awarding the AGIA license to TransCanada, a pipeline company.

The gist of Mansour's argument is that Ramras has a substantial financial interest in BP, which has joined Conoco Phillips in the rival Denali gas pipeline project.

The implication is that Ramras, as a legislator, can benefit himself by boosting the Denali project, which presumably could boost the price of BP's stock.

Ramras said last week that his BP stock purchase had nothing to do with Alaska. He said he bought the stock expecting the company to resolve a problem with work in one of the former Soviet republics, and figured he could make a quick thousand or two in profit with a jump in BP's price.

"I wish I would have only owned it for 24 hours," he said.

Instead, BP stock went down. Ramras held it and bought 5,000 more shares this spring to take advantage of dividends the stock paid. He said all of this has been a day trading exercise, and he said the notion that he can influence the stock price of a multinational like BP is ludicrous. And even if he could, whatever gain he made wouldn't be worth it.

"What kind of person would risk their integrity for a small gain?" he asked.

He should know the answer; some of his former colleagues took just that risk in recent years.

We have no cause to believe that Ramras made his investment for any other reason than he says. He wanted to flip that stock. It didn't work. So he held it to take advantage of dividends and a chance at profit later. He reported the stock purchase to the Alaska Public Offices Commission.

But such investments at the very least create the appearance of a conflict of interest -- and Alaska law requires lawmakers to avoid not just the conflict but the appearance.

All Alaskans have a stake in the oil companies through the Permanent Fund. But lawmakers who still have far-reaching and consequential decisions to make on a gas pipeline project shouldn't have any substantial interest in any of the companies that are major players -- and thus are likely to be negotiating terms with Alaska.

It's a question of public trust.

Ramras said last week that he's been giving the matter a lot of thought. He said he's been "a free-market guy on every issue that's come up."

"I should be able to invest my money where I want to invest it."

On the other hand, he said, he's aware of the public trust. Last week he bought 5,000 shares in TransCanada to balance his holdings in BP and blunt the attacks of those he called "terrorist bloggers." (As of Thursday, he said, he had a negative position in both.) "Where do you draw the line?" he asked.

"I haven't figured it out yet."

We don't claim to know all the answers on conflict of interest. But in this case? Keep it simple and keep the trust. Lawmakers shouldn't buy or hold stock in BP, Conoco Phillips, Exxon or TransCanada. As Ramras himself said, "There's a universe of stocks that aren't sensitive to any Alaskan issue."

The North Slope producers and TransCanada are not in that universe. Lawmakers should invest elsewhere.

BOTTOM LINE: Public trust trumps the right of Alaska lawmakers to invest as they please.

ADVERTISEMENT