The Mudflats

Senator Albert Kookesh at the 2009 Alaska Federation of Natives Convention in Anchorage

Wasn’t it just swell of Senator Al Kookesh (D) to give us such a great lesson? We should all say thanks, because we were wondering to ourselves, “Gee, is it really that bad if corportate interests can insinuate themselves into our government?  I mean corporations are people too.  And they have free speech – it’s just called ‘money.’  So what’s the big deal?”

Well, Senator Kookesh decided to be a living breathing cautionary tale about mixing corporate interest and government and why it has nothing to do with being a Republican, or a Democrat, a conservative or a liberal.

Senator Kookesh represents a large disctrict in the state of Alaska that includes  land covered in what some would call “timber” and what others would call “old growth forest.”  It all depends on your perspective.  And in the senator’s vast  district, there’s a little town called Craig, which is about 50 miles away from Ketchikan, down by our state’s capital. 

And the residents of Craig have been contemplating the potential transfer of tens of thousands of acres of federal land currently in the Tongass National Forest to the hands of a Native Corporation called Sealaska – think “timber.”   The land in question and the town of Craig are both on Prince of Wales Island, the fourth largest island in the United States after the big island of Hawaii, Kodiak, and Puerto Rico.  Residents there have been thinking about whether cutting down the trees is a good idea or not.

Senator Kookesh, who in addition to being a legislator for the area, also sits on the board of Sealaska Corporation (which stands to profit handsomely from the timber sales) has an opinion about what should happen, and I’ll bet you can guess what it is.  Now this presents a pretty sticky situation.  On the one hand, as a legislator he is bound to represent the will of the people in his district.  On the other hand, as a board member of Sealaska, his interest is in chopping down a bunch of trees and enriching Sealaska’s coffers.  This is a predicament, and a pretty clear conflict of interest.

Well, the City Council of Craig had a meeting, in  part  to talk about making a move to oppose the bill and the land transfer. And  Sealaska stopped in to try to convince them to drop their move to oppose the bill.   I don’t want to speak for the good people of Craig, but I would imagine that the residents like their island, and they are justifiably concerned about what will happen if it’s clear cut.  Let’s face it, there are plenty of ugly places without trees in the world but there is almost no old growth forest left.  Prince of Wales Island is pretty special. Clear cutting kind of ruins that.  And then there’s the fact that once the trees are gone, the jobs are gone and there they are with a naked island AND no jobs.

So back to our moral dilemma.  Senator Kookesh has a foot in both worlds – he’s a legislator, and also a corporate board member.  How does he navigate this ethical mine field?  Does he avoid the meeting so as to eliminate any appearance of impropriety?  Heck, no.  Not only does our esteemed Senator show up with the contingent from Sealaska Corporation, but he insinuates that if the City Council of Craig, doesn’t play ball and decides to proceed with their opposition to the land transfer, that he could (as their Senator) make it difficult for them to find state funding for future projects.  And so could their Republican Representative who also sits on the Sealaska board (and who is thanking his lucky stars right about now that he wasn’t at the meeting.)

Nice. 

Can anyone say, “coercive extortion?”

Here’s the exact quote from today’s Anchorage Daily News:  (Feel free to imagine pin stripe suits and cigar smoke and New Jersey accents if you like)

“I am the state senator that represents Craig. I’m not a vindictive person,” Kookesh told the council. “I see you’re going to have your 2010 capital projects on the table here tonight. And who’s it going to go to? It’s going to go to me. And to (Rep.) Bill Thomas, who is also a Sealaska board member. We have to be good neighbors.”

“There are times you are going to need my help and Bill Thomas’ help,” Kookesh said next, according to an audio recording of the council meeting. “And this is a time we need yours.”

[snip]

After Kookesh made his comments about how Craig’s projects will have to go through him, he went on to say that Sealaska would appreciate support.

“And if you can’t support us, remain neutral, and let us go forward with what we think we have to do to make sure that we continue to be a force in the Prince of Wales Island area,” he said.

So, if you can’t support us, don’t actively oppose us.  “Us” being, Sealaska Corp, not “us” the Legislature, or “us” the citizens of Southeast Alaska.  Let’s not get that confused.

And for you sticklers who want to know the letter of the law, here’s the relevant part of the Alaska Legislative Branch Ethics Act, kindly provided by Sean Cockerham of the aforementioned Anchorage Daily News:

(e) A legislator may not directly, or by authorizing another to act on the legislator’s behalf,

(1) agree to, threaten to, or state or imply that the legislator will take or withhold a legislative, administrative, or political action, including support or opposition to a bill, employment, nominations, and appointments, as a result of a person’s decision to provide or not provide a political contribution, donate or not donate to a cause favored by the legislator, or provide or not provide a thing of value;

(2) state or imply that the legislator will perform or refrain from performing a lawful constituent service as a result of a person’s decision to provide or not provide a political contribution, donate or not donate to a cause favored by the legislator, or provide or not provide a thing of value; or

(3) unless required by the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature, take or withhold official action or exert official influence that could substantially benefit or harm the financial interest of another person with whom the legislator is negotiating for employment.

Unethical?  You make the call.

And now, thanks to the Supreme Court and their recent ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, it would appear that Sealaska Corporation  can now pay for as much political advertising as it wants for whomever it wants, and against whomever it wants. 

I know if I sat on the City Council of Craig, Alaska, I’d have just made up my mind how I was going to vote not only on the Sealaska issue, but on how I was not going to vote in the next election.