The State of Alaska – Friday, June 25
From Christy Harvey at the Center for American Progress, and KUDO 1080am
Friday, June 25
907 News
1) Defense Fund 2.0
Ethics Board Investigator Timothy Petumenos yesterday ruled that Sarah Palin’s legal defense fund was illegal and ordered the former governor to return $386,000 to donors. Hours later, her supporters were back in action, sending an email blast which reads in part: “Sarah Palin’s enemies have scored another victory in their vicious campaign to smear, bankrupt, and force this dedicated public servant and conservative leader out of politics!…My friend, this is a witch hunt, pure and simple…P.S. When Governor Palin complained about Barack Obama’s law firm having a conflict of interest during the investigation, they were replaced by attorney Timothy Petumenos, whose public records show repeated financial contributions to Democrats running for Alaskan office. You tell me what’s going on here! We need your help!” The message was signed “The Sarah Palin Legal Defense Fund.” [Sarah Palin Legal Defense Fund]
- Follow-Up 1: Here’s a link to the April 13 ABC News article detailing the $12 million Sarah Palin has made since leaving office last July. [ABC News]
- Follow-Up 2: The new “Sarah Palin Legal Defense Fund” claims not to be directly connected to the former governor. The Alaska Dispatch highlights some deep digging done by the blog Palingates, however, which shows the two groups actually share an address. [ADN]
USA Today picks up our cruise tax controversy, reporting on Gov. Parnell signing the new legislation to “sharply lower the state’s $46-a-head tax on vacationers visiting on large cruise ships” yesterday. The Juneau Empire sums the delight of the cruise ship owners with this quote from John Binkley, representative of the Alaska Cruise Association (the group of cruise ship companies operating in Alaska): “This is the first time that I can ever recall that we’ve had a governor who has stood up for this industry,” [USAT] [Juneau Empire]
3) How They Voted
Senate Republicans yesterday successfully blocked a measure that would have extended unemployment help for hundreds of thousands of Americans who’ve exhausted their benefits. Democrats failed to break the GOP filibuster over a procedural vote which would have allowed them to procede to the unemployment bill. How We Voted: Sen. Mark Begich (D., AK) voted yes to proceed to unemployment bill. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., AK) did not vote. [AP]
4) Parnell vs. Walker
Charging that the governor is too cozy with the companies involved in the pipeline project, challenger Bill Walker “has filed Freedom of Information Act paperwork in the hopes of forcing Gov. Sean Parnell to open the books in ongoing pipeline open season processes.” [Fairbanks Daily News-Miner]
5) Follow-Up: Liberty Project
Yesterday we linked to the NYT front-page story on BP’s plan to drill for oil from an artificial island off the coast of Alaska. Now Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D., NJ) is calling on the new head of the Bureau of Ocean Energy (the new name of the Minerals Management Service), to block BP’s plans. From Sen. Lautenberg’s statement: “Considering the risky nature of the project, Lautenberg asked the administration to put the project on hold until a full investigation into the causes and effects of the BP gulf spill are completed, a new analysis of the Liberty project is conducted, and new laws and regulations governing drilling are in place.” [NYT]
DC2AK
1) DISCLOSE
In response to the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” ruling (allowing unlimited spending by corporations on political campaign ads), the House of Representatives yesterday passed “a far-reaching campaign finance reform measure” yesterday that would a) require CEOs to appear in campaign ads they fund; b) impose strict financial disclosure requirements on corporations and c) restrict political activity for those companies receiving federal contracts or TARP money. The vote was 219-206. Rep. Don Young (R., AK) voted no. [USA Today] [The Vote]
2) Oil Spill = Food Stamps
The environment isn’t the only thing devastated by the BP spill in the Gulf. Florida’s Capitol News Service reports that applications for food stamps in the state’s Panhandle have skyrocketed in the wake of the oil catastrophe; since May 1st, food stamp applications are up 15%. [FLA News]
3) Out Of The Closet
The Supreme Court Thursday ruled that groups fighting against allowing same-sex couples to receive benefit are not allowed to keep the names on their petitions a secret. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that “public disclosure … helps ensure that the only signatures counted are those that should be, and that the only referenda placed on the ballot are those that garner enough valid signatures.” [SeattlePI]
4) Early Morning Reform
At a time many of us in Alaska were still awake, the U.S. Senate passed sweeping new financial reform in the wee hours of the DC morning after a 20-hour legislative session. The bill, which “will provide the most significant overhaul since the Great Depression” contains new oversight of the derivatives market, revamps the regulation of mortgages and credit cards, and strikes a deal on the so-called Volcker Rule, which “seeks to limit proprietary trading at big financial firms and to restrict bank sponsorship of hedge funds and private equity firms.” [NYT] [The Hill]
5) Clean Up
The NYT reports that, more than 20 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, “cleanup technology has progressed so little that the biggest advancement in the Gulf of Mexico disaster — at least in the public’s mind — is an oil-water separator based on a 17-year-old patent and promoted by the movie star Kevin Costner.” The Problem: “More significant advances have been hampered by a lack of money for research and laws and regulations that make it difficult to test new ideas and introduce improved equipment…Even officials with BP, the company responsible for the gulf spill and cleanup, acknowledge that most of the equipment in use represents improvements in old technology, and cite the lack of major spills in the past two decades as one reason.” [NYT]
Watercooler Star
1) Good People Doing Nice Stuff
Check out Crowdwise.com, a new charity site created by actor Ed Norton. The site’s slogan? “If you don’t give back, no one will like you.” If you do raise money, you earn titles like Doctor, Tsar and Dame. And raising money gets you interesting little gifts – give $17 for scholarships for cancer survivors and you too can receive a bottle of Will Ferrell’s “Sexy Hot Tan” sunscreen, “emblazoned with the likeness of his Speedo-clad body.” The site uses social networking, funny snark and the occasional picture of a random napkin to raise cash for scholarships, Gulf cleanup, medical research and any other charitable enterprise you can imagine (and then post and then take viral.) [Crowdrise] [USA Today]
2) Movie Reviews
This weekend’s big opening? “Grownups,” starring Adam Sandler, David Spade, Chris Rock and that guy who played Paul Blart, Mall Cop. The reviews aren’t very kind.
“They’re just killing time onscreen. Slowly and painfully.” [Star Tribune, running in the ADN]
“With its lame, guys-doing-guy-stuff humor, “Grown Ups” resembles the bro-centric action picture “The A-Team,” except that nothing blows up — unless you count a flatulent mother-in-law (which is only one of several sexist jokes that immediately wear thin).” [Washington Post]
“The movie is symptomatic of a social attitude that might be called the security of incompetence. There’s something reassuring about a bad movie that doesn’t ask you to think or feel or even pay attention; we can all be happy D-minus students huddled together in communal self-disgust in a D-minus world.” [NYT]
3) Burger Time
“Probably it’s not quite healthy, but it’s very tasty. And you can feel the spirit of America.” — Russian President Dmitry Medvedev after his cheeseburger lunch at Ray’s Hell Burger in Arlington, VA, with President Obama yesterday. POTUS ordered a regular cheeseburger; the Russian president gussied his up with jalepenos, mushrooms and onions. (He also posted a photo of his burger on his Twitter feed, @KremlinRussia_E.) [NECN]
4) Pot Poll
A new Pew Research poll shows Americans are generally in favor of legalizing medical marijuana (73%), but they’re not ready to support full legalization of pot: “Just 41% say the use of marijuana should be made legal while 52% want to keep it illegal.” [Yahoo]
5) Immigration Challenge
From AP: “In a tongue-in-cheek call for immigration reform, farm workers are teaming up with comedian Stephen Colbert to challenge unemployed Americans: Come on, take our jobs. Farm workers are tired of being blamed by politicians and anti-immigrant activists for taking work that should go to Americans and dragging down the economy, said Arturo Rodriguez, the president of the United Farm Workers of America.” [AP]
And The Rest
For Our Calendars
TV: Anchorage Edition tonight hosts Steve MacDonald (KTUU), Jill Burke (Alaska Dispatch) and Libby Casey (APRN). Check it out on Channel 7 at 9PM (replaying tomorrow at 5)
Around Town: Free HIV testing today at the Mountain View Community Center from 10-noon and 4-7 p.m.
Quote Of The Day
Jimmy Fallon: “The confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan will be broadcast live Monday on C-SPAN 3. You know it’s going to be boring when C-SPAN 2 passes on it.”
Number Of The Day
42%: Number of self-described conservatives in the latest Gallup poll, the highest percentage since they started asking the question in ’92. By comparison, only 20% of those surveyed describe themselves as liberals. [Gallup]
How stupid can people be she is a multi millionaire and they re sending her money.Come on now people use what God gave ya and think before ya give.I know some read here.She is making this like she did with her abuse of power saying she was innocent when in reality she was not..Just because her friends said she was does not make it so.She is claiming ignorance of the law.maybe the young man who went into her email should do the same and get off the same as she is.Paying back money and back taxes does not mean she was not unethical.It just shows she got away with things we as the real Americans would not have gotten away with..JMO
How We Voted: Sen. Mark Begich (D., AK) voted yes to proceed to unemployment bill. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., AK) did not vote. [AP]
———————-
You are not out of the hole you dug with your shot-across-the-bow stuff you shot yourself in the foot with, Senator Begich, but this WAS the right thing to do.
Senator Murkowski-
How dare you? Not voting is almost as bad as being an outfront obstructionist.
The vote was 219-206. Rep. Don Young (R., AK) voted no.
What a piece of work you have become Rep dung!
i am so hoping we can get rid of you by the voting booth and not by sending you back to mis-represent us so many times you expire in office.
We really need to VOTE you out.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062501209.html?hpid=artslot
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062501209.html?hpid=artslot
Palin fund illegal.
Waiting for (my) locals to voice their opinions. I already know how JakeD will be spinning this.
He or she sure does don’t they.I noticed that name on a lot of places
This might sound trite, but I really like the map. I knew where Anchorage and Juneau were, but I was a bit hazy about the rest.
me too.
Murkowski did not show up?
That apple did not fall far from the tree.
Van Flein was asked whether a legal defense fund was proper for Palin, who has reportedly made at least $12 million from her best-selling book and other media deals in the past year.
“To me this is really a public debt that she has taken the burden on privately,” Van Flein said. “So I don’t expect her – and I don’t think the public expects her – to take out her own checkbook for what is really a cost of doing business as a public official.”
Haw-haw-haw. The public doesn’t expect her to reach into her pockets that have ALREADY been lined with $12 million dollars and pay for her own freaking lawyers? How…deluded are her fans? I mean, do they spend their time licking lead-based paint? Or (unsafely) casting their own lead bullets or something?
I have known many, many ‘public officials’ that did not need legal defense funds, mainly because THEY DID NOT ROUTINELY BREAK THE LAW.
“I have known many, many ‘public officials’ that did not need legal defense funds, mainly because THEY DID NOT ROUTINELY BREAK THE LAW.”
*gasps*
Clearly $P missed that class. Maybe she was too busy being Sarah the Barracuda to bother to pay attention to any pesky little notions about ethics.
While I want her to go away, far away, I think it would be marvelous Theatre of the Absurd to have her run for POTUS in 2012. And lose, of course.
*grins*
Let’s see how long Van Flein waits, and waits, and waits some more for his bills to be paid before he does “expect her to take out her own checkbook”!
But the ethics charges were not for her doing her job as Governor correctly, but for her non-gubernatorial grifting.
I don’t see that the public should have to bear the burden for that. We don’t as a rule vote for a public servant to serve “incorrectly.”
I have to wonder if she refused the !00K because she would have to itemize its usage, and any personal gain would be taxable income. Considering her habit of lining her pockets from every possible avenue, I doubt she wants IRS digging through her tax documents.
Maybe someone can explain this more, but the way I understood the process, the citizen makes the complaint, it goes to the Personnel Board, and they hire an investigator to determine whether the complaint has merit. Only then, if it does, would the issue go out of PB confidential review and into a hearing.
1. So up to this point, if the official hasn’t done anything questionable that needs defending to the investigator, there is no reason for expensive attorneys charging lots of hours, is there? Am I missing something? If the complaint is “frivolous” under the Act, the investigator doesn’t even bring it forward, just reports on his findings to the board. This fact-finding cost is covered by the public.
2. What would the public official have to provide in response that rises to the level of private debt burden on their part? Aren’t we in the realm of, Did you or did you not do X, and is X indeed a violation of the Act? And the investigator considers the second part, the official only has to respond to the first part. The answers would seem to be straightforward to establish–email records, official calendars, that sort of thing. So far I am not see the public official needing to deal with their response in any way, shape, or form that becomes private funding of a public cost of doing business as an official. Unless they need to protect themselves by legally deflecting a finding that Yes, they did X, and Yes, X is a violation. In which case, why would that be our public debt anyway?
3. If the topic of the complaint is not really a big deal politically, and there is corrective action agreed to, why not downplay it and let it drop, and just move on to focus public attention on your own agenda? Isn’t that what you’re in office for? Why would hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees be part of the political calculation here? And more to the point, why would you want attention drawn to it if it is?
I might donate to the fund, if proof of actual legal fees were provided. Y’know, invoices and the like.
However, I would also think, what stinkin’ lawyer would continue to work for a client if he wasn’t being paid?
Van Flien is either being paid, or he is the biggest idiot in the world. Also does not say much for his law firm. Palin’s debt either remains on their books or they are huge idiots.
According to, I think Gryphen, Sarah ha 6 lawyers working to draw up the charter for the fund. That is a lot of legal fees, plus van Flein, and who ever administered the fund, and fees for filing the legal document etc.
Did she want to be in the position of having to acknowledge to her donors to the Fund that all they actually paid for was the fees of the lawyers who set up the Fund and the cost of setting it up and maintaining it?
Probably not.
Read the article in the post and did not quite understand why van what ever his name is thinks she should not pay for her ethics violations herself.She made them no one else did.As for her saying she did not want to waste state money get real she wasted it with her living at home,the money had to be repaid only she did not tell her supporters that fact.Do people really think that the people in her state don’t know what they are doing.She would hide all these violations if she could.Even the tea party is finding out about her.
He is her lawyer so he will argue for her side.
Whether or not he actually believes what he said carries any weight?????
And considering how biased the Personell Board is, he might have gotten them to come to that decision.
I was just dejavu-ing to last year when Palin resigned. I remember how surprised we all were and how many of us were absolutely convinced she was resigning under duress not by choice. I remember saying at the time that I thought the legal fund played a big role in what was coming down.
I am now convinced more and more that is exactly what happened. I don’t think yesterday’s ruling was any surprise to Palin at all. I think she was told exactly what she was told yesterday, almost one year ago and her plan was just to stall baby stall.
I think she resigned because she was informed that the the legal fund was illegal, and that not only couldn’t she dip into the cookie jar for any old cookie she wanted, she also would have to pay back the money and she was also on the hook for an undisclosed amount of legal fees, none of which could be paid from the illegal account. She had abused her ‘official’ position as governor one time too often and this time she wasn’t going to be able to wiggle her way out.
From Palin’s perspective, she in essence had $300K yanked from underneath her and I’m sure she was planning on that money to see her through her term as Governor so she could set sail on her quest to conquer the world not as a quitter but as a popular and successful Governor.
I really believe she called in every favor she had to get the ruling she got yesterday and she also was able to delay that ruling for almost an entire year and she frantically spent the time earning some desperately needed money. Her legal fees must be astronomical and not because of nuisance ethics complaints, but because of her clearly illegal activities. BIG DIFFERENCE!
Just think if that ruling came down right after she resigned. Do you think she would be the ‘darling’ of the Republican party that she is today? I really don’t. I think the fact that fund only took in $30K after it was frozen even though that website was up and running and begging for donations the whole time speaks volumes.
Yes there are idiots out there who think she is the best thing since Wonder bread, but those people also probably think Britney and Paris and Kim K. are pretty darn special too. But here is the thing. Everyone know she doesn’t need the money. Now perhaps in the real world with all those troubled kids and grand-kids and lawyer fees and fence building that Sarah is on the hook for, $12 million just doesn’t go as far as one would hope. But to Joe Ril-American in Ril-America USA, that is more money than even Elvis and God put together ever deserved to make in one year.
This is a big deal for Sarah Palin. It’s a big deal because her whole schtick rests upon suckering fools out of their money. And her #1 scam is, “Poor little ol me.”
Here is something interesting I thought about the other day myself. We are a country of soundbites and substance reduced to a few words. When Sarah Palin burst on the scene two years ago and we knew so little about her I would have described her with the words “Fresh, attractive, young mother with a unique Alaskan back story.”
Today I would describe her as a “Hypocritical, phony, money-grubbing compulsive liar.”
I really doubt that two years ago that would have been the description anyone gave of her. Today, I would bet that millions of Americans would describe her exactly that way.
I’m also still unclear why she isn’t legally on the hook here for allowing an illegal fund to be formed with her knowledge and consent. Is she???? Did she cut a deal????
First the Legal Defense Fund has to be paid back.
Next, the PAC for Sarah will have to pay that back too, since she is not a candidate for office. Maybe a run in the primaries will suffice and she will keep the money and spend it on her daughter’s “consultant business”. She is quite the operator, but little by little she is coming undone.
So any boots on the ground mud puppies reporting how big the protester group is at UCS for the nitwit’s “speech” tonight?
there’s some good coverage going on over at the PG site. Twitter also has some folks posting
local papers put it at 100.. I was there, and figure it around 75…
I think Palin is the classic grifter in that she is always just one scam ahead of being put out of business.
She has had an incredible run of good luck what with the hands-off press, the Fox prop-up and the adoring “useful idiots”, but I think even she knows she is running against the clock and the is why she is so frantically out there trying to make every last dime she can.
She is eroding gradually yet she is eroding. No one else with her baggage would have lasted as long as she has, but she is such a media freak that no one really wants to write her off completely because… well let’s face it, she is do darn entertaining. She makes money for both sides.
It would be interesting to know what dates her speaking engagements were contracted.
At a guess early on after the VP run before she had become so well known.
Betcha the number of new speaking contracts are dwindling, she is old news now and probably not all that much of a draw outside of the far right.
We have a Scary twosome running for Gov & Lt.Gov. . of Iowa in Nov. SP has endorsed him–Terry Branstad.(Like she knows him. Ha ! ) He has been Gov for several terms in the past. Branstad has picked a woman to run with him on the Rep. ticket that looks and acts like Sarah. Big mouth and glasses.
OMG—–I can’t take anymore.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((LacyLady))))))))))))))))))))))))))
There is an event scheduled at Gwinnett Arena in Atlanta that Sarah is to headline …. some evangelical exploit your little disabled kid event that is supposed to draw 13,500. P.U.R.E. Ministries – 29 Jun, Unfortunately only a 1000 tickets have sold. Tickets are now half price. Apparently it will be one of those events where the tickets are bought up by committed parties and people bused in so reality is not revealed. This is embarrassing. The future is here.
“Governor Palin shall continue to support and assist in the corrective action, will secure the
cooperation of the Trustee as to the foregoing, and shall not take any action that undercuts or
undermines the corrective action agreed to herein.”
Just going to point out once again that the fundraising e-mail from the new trust fund is definitely in violation of this paragraph.
The fundraising e-mail from the new trust fund is in violation of any sense of ethics, morals and decent human behavior. Perfect Capitalism at its best. Who are we to not let her try to fleece people? Let the buyer beware. We are the baddies here, not Sarah. All she’s doing is asking you to pay for something that her actions incurred and that she has plenty of money now to pay herself, but by golly it is her RIGHT to ask poor actual suffering people to give her money.
Just because something is legal Sarah, does not mean it is right.
If you (SP) can sleep soundly at night knowing that the $25 and $50 checks people send you means they have that much less to pay their own bills, or spend on something to further their own selves, that’s fine. I couldn’t do it.
If I made as much money as she did last year and had those legal bills, I would simply have paid them (whether I should have had to or not) to be able to continue on free and clear of the burden.
I would never continue to ask people to donate to me. Never. What a grifting embarrassment she is.
I hear she was late to her speaking gig tonight and that it was as lackluster as usual. I hope everyone who paid big bucks to attend goes to their blogs, e-mails, or whatever they do, and at least says something like “well, we only did it basically to support the foundation, but Palin really is a very boring and unmotivated speaker. Actually, that’s me being kind. She’s just …. bad.”
Unfortunately, I suspect that the bulk of her audience this evening thought she was just great, whether or not they could understand anything she said. Turlock is still a pretty red area in Cali, especially if you only count the folks who can afford $500 a plate dinners.
But, dog, she sure is a terrible speaker.
comment not for publication: the finance bill you talked about that took all night has only passed the conference committee and has yet to be voted on by the Senate – probably Tuesday. Thought you
might like to know. To be voted on by the House again, too, of course.
Nice site you have now. Congratulations.
hi,good apple in your post,I love thatelegantapple,I need to find one for me,jane