Opinions

Legislature slashed funding for crucial campaign finance watchdog

For many political and business leaders in Alaska, it's not a love-hate relationship they've enjoyed with the Alaska Public Offices Commission.

It's a hate relationship, one that springs from disclosure and enforcement actions that occasionally create uncomfortable moments for those at the intersection of politics and power.

In the 40 years since the Watergate scandal prompted laws to identify conflicts of interest and reveal the sources of political cash, we've had more than a few governors and legislators who would have been happy to sign a death certificate for APOC.

Today, this essential state agency is in critical condition. Thanks to a 40 percent budget cut and a staff that has been cut nearly in half, those who consider the commission an unnecessary nuisance are closer than ever to meeting their goal. The Legislature has a Republican bill before it to abolish the agency and replace it with something laughably titled the "Public Integrity Commission of Alaska."

The bill would also abolish the entirely sensible state requirement that the top three donors be identified on some political ads.

In the interests of integrity, the Legislature should bolster APOC, not kill it, and leave the disclosure rule alone. It should also investigate allegations raised by APOC, in a letter responding to a legislative audit, of "inappropriate actions" taken by a high official in the Parnell administration to influence an APOC case involving Bob Gillam and the proposed Pebble mine.

The five-member APOC, which now has two Republicans, a Libertarian, a Democrat and a member of the public, hires an executive director and a staff to administer the reporting laws governing campaigns, conflicts of interest and lobbying. The working theory is that the public is best served when it knows as much as possible about the financial connections of those who hold government office. Despite the complaints from some public officials, candidates and special interests, the agency has never been all that aggressive, mainly because it exists within a government structure that prefers passivity.

ADVERTISEMENT

The commission has survived, but usually with a budget low enough to keep it from carrying out its assigned tasks, leading to complaints from those in power that it fails to carry out its assigned tasks. Its mission is to "encourage the public's confidence in their elected and appointed officials by administering Alaska's disclosure statutes and publishing financial information regarding the activities of election campaigns, public officials, lobbyists and lobbyist employers."

It is in those cases where private interests and the public interest are not identical that APOC has done its most valuable work for Alaska. You may remember that after the final Veco Corp. scandal, which led to the forced confinement of key lawmakers, as well as Bill Allen, APOC enjoyed a temporary resurgence of support.

The clearest signs yet that Alaska political leaders are ready to forget about Allen's backroom reign are that the APOC budget has been slashed and its staff is down to eight employees, compared to 13 1/2 in the last election cycle. They'll keep the lights on and post documents on the website, but forget about thorough complaint investigations in a timely manner. That's the way some people like it.

Gov. Bill Walker proposed cutting the general fund budget for this fiscal year from $1.4 million to $1.2 million. The House and Senate knocked that down to $790,500 after the House Finance Committee toyed with a much larger cut. The Legislature proposed the reduction could be eased if APOC doubled its income from fees, but it failed to grant the authority to do that, said APOC Executive Director Paul Dauphinais.

It also included a statement in the budget bill expressing the desire to not raise fees for candidates. With those conflicting signals, APOC will be left with $120,000 in fees and $790,500 in general funds. It works out to a budget cut of more than 40 percent.

The APOC is in a weakened state, but a bill introduced at the end of the last legislative session would finish it off.

Senate Bill 115, the plan to end APOC and create an integrity commission, is sponsored by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Anchorage Sen. Lesil McGuire. Adding the word "integrity" would make for a more impressive name, but the bill would not promote public integrity in Alaska. The measure would encourage political party officials to seek appointment by the governor as integrity commissioners and dictate that key details about complaints would remain secret unless or until the commission found a violation. It says that if a person complains to the commission and makes the information public, the commission would have to reject the complaint.

I agree with a Republican member of APOC who says the integrity commission as envisioned in McGuire's bill would be a "disaster." The last thing we need is to increase the role of the political parties in deciding campaign finance and conflict-of-interest questions.

In a hearing in March, McGuire said she liked it when the APOC cooperated with legislators, but that doesn't happen anymore under Dauphinais, hired in 2011, and current commissioners. She said the philosophy before his time was that "lawmakers were good people, they were dedicated to public service." In that era, there were not many APOC violations, she said.

Perhaps APOC wasn't doing its job in the mythical good old days.

Legislators sometimes wonder why an agency that operates with state funds has the gall to bug them with inconvenient questions. What they need to remember is that APOC is not there to make legislators feel good about themselves or to defend the big-money interests. It exists to help the public.

Her bill says officials of one political party, if appointed to the integrity board by the governor, could not deal with matters related to their party. With nine members, a three-member panel could be assembled in most instances, thus avoiding conflicts, according to the bill.

But the idea that Democratic officials or Republican officials would be ideal arbiters of integrity in all matters related to the opposing party is ridiculous. It is hardly the way to encourage consistent and fair decisions.

Anchorage lawyer Kenneth Kirk, a Republican and chairman of APOC, asked that I make it clear he is speaking his own mind and not representing APOC when he says the SB 115 proposal is a disaster.

"You would have people who are currently actively involved in campaigns ruling on campaign finance violations," he said. "Inevitably, rulings would be more political or partisan than they are under the current system. What's more, there would be even less consistency, because a random group of three out of nine commissioners would rule on each case. That would make it more difficult for candidates to figure out what is and is not permissible."

He's right. APOC needs a budget consistent with its workload, which includes helping legislators and the public by clarifying the rules for people in politics. Instead of abolishing the agency, the Legislature should amend the law to reduce the role of party insiders. That's the way to promote public integrity in Alaska.

Dermot Cole

Former ADN columnist Dermot Cole is a longtime reporter, editor and author.

ADVERTISEMENT