Rich measure would ban public campaign financing

Today, Dick Randolph of Alaska is 72 years old. Like Bob Walker of South Carolina, Randolph is an insurance salesman. Like Bob, Randolph is a former member of his state legislature. But as Bob's legislative service comes to an end, Randolph has come back into the public eye because of his leadership on an Alaska ballot initiative. He was asked to take on the job by "his old friend, New York land developer Howie Rich," according to the Anchorage Daily News in January 2008.

The ballot measure is called the "Anti-Corruption Act," and Randolph describes it this way: "The basic gist is to, you know, stop the use of government money to lobby for more government money."

The Daily News wrote in January that there's more to the measure than just that, and that the Rich-Randolph act is the opposite of a "Clean Elections Initiative" on the same ballot. It writes, "

They both have such great names: "The Clean Elections Act." "The Anti-Corruption Act." Who wouldn't want that? But voters may find they can choose only one of the dueling ballot initiatives that are circulating.

The Clean Elections effort is a push to allow candidates for state office to opt for publicly funded campaigns -- if they agree to give up private donations. The Anti-Corruption initiative would make it a crime for someone who hires a politician fresh out of office to get a government contract, ban government contractors from giving donations -- and ban any public money for campaigns. In other words, one initiative could cancel the other out. Initiatives are a way for voters to make laws without the Legislature.

And in January, people working in support of the Clean Election Act complained that those promoting the Anti-Corruption Act were telling voters that the measures were the same, in order to collect their signatures on petitions.

Scott Kohlhaas, a Libertarian working on the Anti-Corruption team, called the complaint frivolous. His signature gatherers are trained to draw a distinction between the two initiatives, he said. Kohlhaas sat in a suit and tie in a mostly empty office on Sixth Avenue Tuesday. A map of Anchorage political districts and a whiteboard with his group's signature-gathering goals written in marker, hung on the wall.

As Kohlhaas talked, a petition gatherer called looking for his money -- $1 per signature. Backers of both initiatives pay people to collect the nearly 24,000 names they need to put their proposal on a statewide ballot.

When it learned from Kohlhaas and Dick Randolph that Randolph's friend Howie Rich was behind the measure, the Daily News sent an email to Rich asking for an interview, but Rich did not respond. They asked Kohlhaas and others for more information about Rich's participation.

When asked about Rich's role in the Alaska initiative, Kohlhaas said: "I can tell you he sent me an e-mail telling me not to 'eff' this up."

Bob Adney, director of the Anti-Corruption Act committee, said Rich has not given any money to the effort. If the group's proposal gets on the 2010 ballot, it will ask Rich for funding, Adney said. So far, his committee has raised about $75,000, Adney said. But he won't say specifically who gave the money.

Groups trying to get an initiative on the ballot don't have to report where they get they get their money until the initiative makes it to the ballot and the groups start to campaign, said Chris Ellingson, assistant director of the Alaska Public Offices Commission. Alaskans for Clean Elections, which wants public money in campaigns, is voluntarily reporting its funding sources.

When it compared the two ballot measures, the Daily News drew these conclusions:

CLEAN ELECTION INITIATIVE
Meant to reduce the influence of special interests and wealthy donors, it would let candidates for state office opt for a publicly funded campaign.

Candidates who agree to forgo private donations -- and are able to get a minimum number of $5 donations to show they have a solid base of support -- would get a limited amount of state money to run for office.

ANTI-CORRUPTION ACT
Supporters describe it as a way to curb influence peddling between politicians and the people, companies and groups who do business with the state. It also proposes a ban on using public money for campaigns, lobbying or any partisan purpose.

The proposal would put restrictions on anyone who has a government contract. For example, government contractors couldn't hire a politician or staffer who left office within the previous two years.

"Clean elections, anti-corruption initiatives aren't the same critter - 1 seeks, 1 bans public campaign money"
Anchorage Daily News (AK) - January 9, 2008