Alaska, South Dakota measures almost identical

In thinking through the influence that led to Rep. Bob Walker's defeat in South Carolina, and finding the same influence surfacing in Alaska, and in South Dakota, I realized something: The man who has been identified by major papers in South Carolina and Alaska hasn't actually been named in the case of South Dakota. So I looked closer, to make sure that the assumption was right.

In Alaska, a group pushed to get an initiative called the "Anti-Corruption Act" on the ballot for 2010. The Anchorage Daily News reported that New York millionaire Howie Rich asked former state Rep. Dick Randolph, a Libertarian, to lead that effort. The man who runs the "Anti-Corruption Act" group, Bob Adney, told the newspaper that Rich hadn't given any money to the campaign but that Adney planned to ask him for funding once it made it onto the ballot. And the man who ran the petition drive for that campaign, Scott Kohlhaas, told the newspaper that Rich "sent me an e-mail telling me not to 'eff' this up."

The Daily News described the "Anti-Corruption Act" this way: "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 South Dakota, a group called the South Dakota Conservative Action Council was formed in 2007 as a non-profit corporation by three people. A few weeks later, a group called South Dakotans for Open and Clean Goverment was formed, and its purpose was to get a measure on its state ballot, a measure now called Initiated Measure 10. Howie Rich hasn't ever been named as a part of the South Dakota Conservative Action Council, or as a member of South Dakotans for Open and Clean Government.

But the Aberdeen American News described IM-10 this way: "[It] would place a multitude of additional restrictions on individuals' rights to contribute to campaigns and to lobby, and on government involvement in campaigns and lobbying."

The two measures, the one in Alaska where Rich has been named as an influence behind the ballot measure, and the one in South Dakota where he hasn't been named, sounded similar enough that I looked at their full texts. Both can be found online.

This part spells out the main idea of the proposed "Anti-Corruption Act" in Alaska:

(A) No public body, public officer, person in the employ of the state, any of its political subdivisions, any school district, or candidate for public office may, directly or indirectly, direct, permit, receive, require, or facilitate the use of tax revenues or any other public resources for campaign, lobbying, or partisan purposes, including payment of dues or membership fees of any kind to any person, league, or association which, directly or indirectly, engages in lobbying, campaigns, or partisan activity. No candidate, political committee, or political party may accept any contribution from any state, state agency, political subdivision of the state, foreign government, federal agency, or the federal government. A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

This part spells out the main idea of Initiated Measure 10, now on the ballot in South Dakota:

Section 1. That §12-27-21 be amended to read as follows: No public body, public officer, person in the employ of the state or any of its political subdivisions, or candidate for public office may, directly or indirectly, direct, permit, receive, require, or facilitate the use of tax revenues or any other public resources for campaign, lobbying, or partisan purposes, including payment of dues or membership fees of any kind to any person, league, or association which, directly or indirectly, engages in lobbying, campaigns, or partisan activity. No candidate, political committee, or political party may accept any contribution from any state, state agency, political subdivision of the state, foreign government, Indian tribe, federal agency, or the federal government. A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.

The only difference between the two texts is the additions of the words "any school district" in the Alaska version and "Indian tribe" in the South Dakota version, and the label of the misdemeanor (Class A in Alaska, and Class 1 in South Dakota). Otherwise, these texts are the same.

This part spells out situations where the proposed "Anti-Corruption Act" in Alaska doesn't apply:

(C) The provisions of this section do not limit public officials in the performance of their constitutional duties, and do not apply to:
(1) Communications among and between a member and a staff member of a legislative body;
(2) Comments by an elected official or communications from an elected official that are designated for constituents;
(3) Appearances by a public officer or employee pursuant to a specific request to appear before a public body to provide information;
(4) Communications between an elected or appointed public officer and a legislator or a legislative staff member;
(5) A public employee acting in an uncompensated personal capacity, undirected in any manner by, and who does not purport to represent the interests of, a public employer; and
(6) An authorized employee of the office of the Governor, the Supreme Court, or the Alaska Department of Revenue, whose responsibilities are to assess the impact of proposals which affect the administration of government.

This part spells out situations where Initiated Measure 10, now on the ballot in South Dakota, doesn't apply:

Section 3. The provisions of §12-27-21 do not limit public officials in the performance of their constitutional duties, and do not apply to:
(1) Communications among and between a member and a staff member of a legislative body, or between an elected or appointed public officer and a legislator or a legislative staff member;
(2) Comments by an elected official or communications from an elected official that are designated for constituents;
(3) Appearances and communications by a public officer or employee, pursuant to a request to appear before a public body to provide information;
(4) A public employee acting in an uncompensated personal capacity, undirected in any manner by, and who does not purport to represent the interests of, a public employer; and
(5) An authorized employee of the office of the Supreme Court, Governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, auditor, treasurer, and commissioner of school and public lands, and other principal departments of the executive department of government having responsibility to assess the impact of proposals which affect the administration of government.

With the exception of what look like changes for style, and the addition of several more state offices in South Dakota's version, this part also is mostly identical. Whole sections of it are exactly the same.

This part spells out the definitions that will be considered law under the proposed "Anti-Corruption Act" in Alaska:

(D) Definitions. Terms as used in this section mean:
(1) "Direct, permit, receive, require, or facilitate the use of tax revenues or any other public resources for campaign, lobbying, or partisan purposes," includes
(i) the use of public funds or credit, facilities, rights of access, equipment, supplies, or trademarks to influence any state, municipal, or school board election;
(ii) undertaking, promoting,or distributing studies, surveys, analyses, descriptions, or other communications usingpublic resources in a manner specifically calculated to induce support of, or opposition to, proposed legislation or ballot questions; and
(iii) incurring any public administrative expenses or activities to allocate or designate portions of public employee income toentities that engage in lobbying activities, other than charitable organizations qualified as exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any other future tax code.
(2) "Campaign," includes
(i) communications or expenditures related to the pursuit of a public office, either electoral or appointive;
(ii) all lobbying activity; or
(iii) efforts paid in whole or in part by public revenues or resources to coordinate or induce members of the general public or any segment thereof to directly influence legislative activity by communicating with members of a legislative body, supporting or opposing legislation, or supporting or opposing a petition drive or ballot question.
(3) "Lobbying," means attempts to directly influence legislative activity by communication with any member or employee of a legislative body, or with any government official or employee who may participate in the formulation of legislation.
(4) "Person," includes any individual, business entity, governmental entity, organization, committee, political party, campaign fund, and association.
(5) "Public officer or person in the employ of," includes any person who is elected, appointed, or employed by this state, or any political subdivision or school district in this state, including persons who are independent contractors or consultants hired by the state, a political subdivision, or school district in this state.

This part spells out the definitions that will be considered law under Initiated Measure 10, now on the ballot in South Dakota:

Section 4. Terms as used in §12-27-21 mean:
(1) “Direct, permit, receive, require, or facilitate the use of tax revenues or any other public resources for campaign, lobbying, or partisan purposes,” includes
(a) The use of public funds, facilities, rights of access, equipment, supplies, or trademarks to influence any election;
(b) Undertaking, promoting, or distributing studies, surveys, analyses, descriptions, or other communications using public resources in a manner specifically calculated to induce support of, or opposition to, proposed legislation or ballot questions; and
(c) Incurring any public administrative expenses or activities to allocate or designate portions of public employee income to entities that engage in lobbying or partisan activities, other than charitable organizations qualified as exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any future federal tax code;
(2) “Campaign,” includes
(a) Communications or expenditures related to the pursuit of an elected or appointed public office;
(b) All lobbying; and
(c) Efforts paid in whole or in part by public revenues or resources to coordinate or induce members of the general public or any segment thereof to directly influence legislative activity by communicating with members of any legislative body supporting or opposing legislation within this state, or supporting or opposing a petition drive or ballot question;
(3) “Lobbying,” includes attempts to directly influence legislative activity by communication with any member or employee of any legislative body or with any government official or employee who may participate in the formulation of legislation of this state;
(4) “Person,” includes any natural person, business entity, organization, committee, political party, campaign fund, and association;
(5) “Public officer” and “person in the employ of the state or any of its political subdivisions,” include any person who is elected, appointed, or employed by this state or any political subdivision of this state, including any person who is an independent contractor or consultant hired by the state or a political subdivision of this state; and
(6) “Tax revenues or other public resources," includes all state and local government revenues and resources, and does not include any revenues paid or resources provided by the United States government.

In fact, the legal definitions of terms used in the Alaska "Anti-Corruption Act" were so important to its authors that a second set of definitions is found in that document:

(E) Definitions. Terms as used in this section mean:
(1) "Contribution," means a purchase, payment, promise or obligation to pay, loan or loan guarantee, deposit or gift of money, goods, or services for which a charge is ordinarily made and that is made for the purpose of influencing the nomination, election, or selection of a candidate for public office, either elective or appointive, or for the purpose of influencing an initiative, ballot proposition, or question, including payment to another person for the purpose ofthat person's influencing the nomination, election, or selection of a candidate for public office, either elective or appointive, or for the purpose of influencing an initiative, ballot proposition, or question. "Contribution" does not include personal services rendered without compensation by individuals volunteering all or part of their time for these purposes.
(2) "Government contract," includes any contract awarded by an agency or department of this state or any public body receiving state subsidy or authorized to levy taxes, for the purchase of goods or services for amounts greater than five hundred dollars, indexed for inflation per the Consumer Price Index after the year 2010. A contract for services includes collective bargaining agreements with a labor organization representing employees but not employment contracts with individual employees;
(3) "Holder of the government contract," includes any party to the contract, including partners, owners of five percent or more interest, officers, administrators or trustees of any person who is a party to the contract, or, in the case of collective bargaining agreements, the labor organization and any political committees created or controlled by the labor organization;
(4) "Holder of the public office with ultimate responsibility for the award of the contract," means any elected official who may award the contract or appoint an official responsible for awarding the contract, or any elected official of a public body where the contract is awarded by that public body;
(5) "Immediate family member," includes any spouse, child, spouse's child, son-daughter-in-law, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, step brother-sister, step- parent, parent-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, guardian, and domestic partner;
(6) "No-bid government contracts," includes all government contracts that do not use open, blind competitive bidding processes for procurement. Collective bargaining agreements qualify as no-bid government contracts if the contract confers an exclusive representative status to bind all employees to accept the terms and conditions of the contract;
(7) "Person," includes any individual, business entity, governmental entity, organization, committee, political party, campaign fund, and association.

And strangely enough, the same set of legal definitions appears in South Dakota's Initiated Measure 10:

Section 10. Terms as used in sections 5 to 9 of this Act, inclusive, mean:
(1) “Contribution,” includes money, monetary donations, loans, and any in-kind donations, but does not apply to volunteer activities by individuals that do not otherwise qualify as an in-kind donation;
(2) “Government contract,” includes any contract awarded by an agency or department of this state or any public body receiving state subsidy or authorized to levy taxes, for the purchase of goods or services for amounts greater than five hundred dollars, indexed for inflation per the Consumer Price Index after the year 2010. A contract for services includes collective bargaining agreements with a labor organization representing employees but not employment contracts with individual employees;
(3) “Holder of the government contract,” includes any party to the contract, including partners, owners of five percent or more interest, officers, administrators or trustees of any person who is a party to the contract, or, in the case of collective bargaining agreements, the labor organization and any political committees created or controlled by the labor organization;
(4) “Holder of the public office with ultimate responsibility for the award of the contract,” includes any elected official who may award the contract or appoint an official responsible for awarding the contract, or any elected official of a public body where the contract is awarded by that public body;
(5) “Immediate family member,” includes any spouse, child, spouse’s child, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, stepbrother, stepsister, stepparent, parent-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, guardian, and domestic partner;
(6) “No-bid government contract,” includes all government contracts that do not use open, blind competitive bidding processes for procurement. Collective bargaining agreements qualify as no-bid government contracts if the contract confers an exclusive representative status to bind all employees to accept the terms and conditions of the contract; and
(7) “Person,” includes any natural person, business entity, organization, committee, political party, campaign fund, and association.

The authors of both measures also devised a provision requiring a new state website that allows public searches of all government contracts. The language in the Alaska version reads,

(H) The State of Alaska shall promptly publish a summary of each government contract in a searchable website accessible from a conspicuous place on its official website. Any holder of a government contract shall promptly prepare and deliver to the State of Alaska a true and correct "Government Contract Summary", in digital format as prescribed by the State, which shall:
(1) identify the names and addresses of the holders and all other parties to the government contract,
(2) briefly describe the nature of the contract, including whether the contract was awarded based on a competitive bidding procedure or was a contract awarded with no bid, and goods involved or services performed,
(3) disclose the estimated duration and end date of the contract,
(4) disclose the contract's estimated amount, and apportioned sources of payment, and
(5) disclose other relevant contract information as specifically required by the State of Alaska, including verbatim copies of all contract documents, to the extent disclosure would not violate federal or other state laws.

And the South Dakota language reads,

Section 9. The secretary of state shall promptly publish a summary of each government contract on a searchable website accessible from a conspicuous place on its official public website, for a period of at least ten years. Any holder of a government contract shall promptly prepare and deliver to the secretary of state a true and correct "Government Contract Summary," in digital format as prescribed by that office, which shall identify the names and addresses of the holders and all other parties to the government contract, briefly describe the nature of the contract and goods or services performed, disclose whether it is or is not a no-bid government contract, disclose the estimated duration and end date of the contract, and disclose the contract's estimated amount, and apportioned sources of payment. The summary shall also disclose any other relevant contract information as determined by the secretary of state, to the extent disclosure would not violate federal law, trade secrets, or intellectual property rights.

The authors drafted a section on penalties for violation of the Alaska version this way:

(B) Any person who knowingly spends or receives funds in violation of this section shall pay full restitution for the greater of the public cost or for the market value of any misappropriated resources. The second or subsequent violation by a public officer or employee shall render that person ineligible to hold public office or employment with the state or any of its political subdivisions for ten years.

And the South Dakota version reads:

Section 2. Any person who knowingly spends or receives funds in violation of §12-27-21 shall pay full restitution for the greater of the public cost or for the market value of any misappropriated resources. A knowing violation of §12-27-21 is grounds for discharge of an employee. A knowing violation of §12-27-21 is deemed corrupt misconduct.

This section lays out who can and cannot contract with the government to provide services in the Alaska version:

(A) No person may enter into a government contract if such person also employs, hires, or retains the services of a current or former legislator or legislative staff member who is less than two years removed from such public position. A person who knowingly violates this prohibition is guilty of a class A misdemeanor and shall, in addition to other penalties, forfeit any contractual rights to any payment or reimbursement, and shall make restitution to the state in the amount of funds accrued during the period of violation. This subsection shall not apply to a bona fide position, trade, occupation, or profession in which a person engaged or obtained certification within one year prior to becoming a legislator or legislative staff member.

And this is found in the South Dakota version:

Section 5. No person may enter into a government contract if the person also employs, hires, or retains the services of a current or former legislator or legislative staff member who is less than one year removed from such public position. A person who knowingly violates this prohibition is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, in addition to other penalties, forfeit any contractual rights to any payment or reimbursement, and shall make restitution to the state in the amount of funds accrued during the period of violation. This section shall not apply to a bona fide position, trade, occupation, or profession in which a person engaged or obtained certification within one year prior to becoming a legislator or legislative staff member.

The only difference between the two is the length of time that a former legislator or legislative employee must wait before entering a contract with the government: Two years in Alaska, one year in South Dakota.

Here is the text governing who can and cannot contribute to the campaigns of those running for public office, and for how long, in the Alaska version:

(B) Beginning on the date a government contract is awarded and extending until two years following the conclusion of that contract, no holder of the public office with ultimate responsibility for the award of the contract, no candidate for that office, and no person acting on behalf of either may knowingly solicit, accept, or direct a contribution from the holder of the government contract or an immediate family member of the holder. No candidate or other person may knowingly accept or make a contribution that is solicited or directed in violation of this subsection. A person who knowingly violates this prohibition is guilty of a class A misdemeanor and shall, in addition to other penalties, make full restitution to the donor and shall pay restitution in a like amount to the state. If the person has previously been convicted of violating this prohibition, the person shall be ineligible to hold public office or employment with the state or any of its political subdivisions for two years,

(C) Any person entering into a no-bid government contract awarded by the State or any of its subdivisions shall be considered a holder of a government contract and shall contractually agree to cease making, inducing, or soliciting contributions or independent expenditures, directly or indirectly, through any officer, employee, immediate family member of any officer or employee, vendor, or agent, to or for the benefit of any candidates for any elected office of the state or any of its political subdivisions, or to persons who intend to make such contributions within the state or any of its political subdivisions, for the duration of the contract and two years thereafter. The contractual agreement shall provide that any violation of this provision by the holder of the government contract shall, in addition to other legal consequences, result in forfeiture of any contractual rights to payment under the contract, and in payment of restitution to the state in an amount of not less than twice the amount of the contribution. Any person who knowingly violates this provision, or accepts contributions on behalf of a candidate or other entity in violation of this provision, shall pay restitution to the state in an amount not less than twice amount of the contribution. If the treasurer of any entity subject to such agreement obtains knowledge of a contribution made or accepted in violation thereof by that entity, then liability for the violation shall be also attributable to the treasurer unless the treasurer notifies the State of Alaska about the violation in writing within three business days of learning of such contribution. If a person has previously been determined responsible for violating this section, the person shall be ineligible to hold public office, any contract, or employment with the state or any of its political subdivisions for three years. The governor may temporarily suspend any debarment under this Subsection (C) during a declared state of emergency.

And here's the same section in the South Dakota version:

Section 6. Beginning on the date a government contract is awarded and extending until two years following the conclusion of that contract, no holder of the public office with ultimate responsibility for the award of the contract, no candidate for that office, and no person acting on behalf of either, may knowingly solicit, accept, or direct a contribution from the holder of the government contract or an immediate family member of the holder. No candidate or other person may knowingly accept or make a contribution that is solicited or directed in violation of this section. A person who knowingly violates this prohibition is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, in addition to other penalties, make full restitution to the donor. A knowing violation of this section is deemed corrupt misconduct.

Section 7. Any person entering into a no-bid government contract awarded by the state or any of its subdivisions shall be considered a holder of the government contract and shall contractually agree to cease making, inducing, or soliciting any contribution or independent expenditure, directly or indirectly, through any officer, employee, immediate family member of any officer or employee, vendor, or agent, to or for the benefit of any candidate for any elected office of the state or any of its political subdivisions, or to any person who intends to make such a contribution within the state or any of its political subdivisions, for the duration of the contract and two years thereafter. The contractual agreement shall provide that any violation of this provision by the holder of the government contract shall, in addition to other legal consequences, result in forfeiture of any contractual rights to payment under the contract, and in payment of restitution to the state in an amount of not less than twice the amount of the contribution. Any person who knowingly violates this provision, or accepts contributions on behalf of a candidate or other entity in violation of this provision, shall pay restitution to the state in an amount not less than twice the amount of the contribution. If the treasurer of any entity subject to such agreement obtains knowledge of a contribution made or accepted in violation thereof by that entity, then liability for the violation shall be also attributable to the treasurer unless the treasurer notifies the secretary of state about the violation in writing within three business days of learning of such contribution. A knowing violation of this section is deemed corrupt misconduct. If a person has previously been determined to be responsible for violating this section, the person shall be ineligible to hold any government contract, or public employment with the state or any of its political subdivisions, for three years. The Governor may temporarily suspend any debarment under this section during a declared state of emergency.

Except for minor style differences to conform with their own state codes, they are mirror images.

There are few more minor segments in each version, but they, too, are nearly identical in the Alaskan "Anti-Corruption Act" and South Dakota's IM-10.

In fact, when you consider the measures, the groups that support them and the way they've been funded, there's only one major difference between the two: In Alaska, it's public knowledge that Howie Rich brought the proposal to that state, found someone to organize a campaign for it, and will contribute funding to it. In South Dakota, the organization that was created last year to propose IM-10, and to organize a campaign for it, doesn't reveal who is funding their work.

Rich pushed Alaska's "Anti-Corruption Act" too

Two days after Cindi Ross Scoppe named Howie Rich and his goal to "dismantle government" as a decisive factor in her newspaper's endorsement of candidate, the director of the Alaska Public Interest Research Group named Howie Rich as a destructive force in Alaska politics, too.

The so-called Anti-Corruption Initiative has hidden the money it has received. Supporters have said they will ask New York real-estate tycoon Howie Rich for money if they make the ballot, which they now have in 2010. Rich has thrown his money into ballot initiatives across the United States, in an effort to further his own interests.

Some of these initiatives have been thrown off the ballot, as in Montana where, in September of 2006, District Judge Dirk Sandefur removed three bogus initiatives from the November ballot. Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer challenged Rich to a public debate, saying: "I am writing to invite you to Montana to meet the folks whose lives you wish to change so drastically through your shady campaign. We would like to learn more about who you are, and about your motive to impose such a poisonous constitutional amendment on us."

... By wrapping their initiative in the guise of fighting corruption, Anti-Corruption Initiative supporters are attempting to hide their efforts to negate Clean Elections. But that is exactly what their initiative will do.
...
Most importantly, with clean elections, corporations and special interests can't buy their way into the halls of government. Special interest money is simply taken out of the equation. This puts people back in charge of the electoral process and their democracy.
...
The Clean Elections Initiative is a positive step toward political campaign reform in Alaska. It will allow Alaskans of all political stripes to run for office and put out their ideas as to what is best for Alaska. The founders of this country and this state certainly didn't want wealthy special interests dominating political life. Clean elections are a way to get our system back.

My turn: Clean Elections transparent, 'Anti-Corruption' masks funding
Juneau Empire (AK) - June 22, 2008

New Yorker has history in Alaska, too

The Howie Rich who was mentioned by Cindi Ross Scoppe in The State on May 13 was mentioned also by a reporter in Alaska's Anchorage Daily News last winter, on January 9, more than a week before Joey Millwood's public forum on immigration in Landrum. A former Alaska state representative named Dick Randolph told the Daily News that he was "contacted by an associate of his old friend, New York land developer Howie Rich" about leading a ballot initiative campaign there.

On January 20, a writer in the Juneau Empire explained the initiative and the relationship between Randolph and Rich:

For example, two initiatives before us are the Clean Elections Initiative and the Anti-Corruption Act. On the surface, both initiatives appear to be like-minded efforts, but in reality they are diametrically opposed. Clean Elections proposes greater public funding/participation in future elections while the anti-corruption effort clearly prohibits this objective. Even more disconcerting are allegations that the anti-corruption folks are claiming their effort is a substitute for the Clean Elections Initiative. If so, it is clearly not. But the bigger issue lies in the existing disclosure rules. The sponsors of the Clean Elections Initiative have voluntarily disclosed their funding sources, while the anti-corruption campaign folks will not - their right under existing law until the initiative is certified.

What is known is that the anti-corruption campaign has at least indirect ties to Howard Rich, a New York real estate developer. This tie stems from former state Rep. Dick Randolph, who has lent his name to the anti-corruption effort. Both men are friends and devoted libertarians. Unfortunately, Rich is infamous for funding stealth citizen initiatives in other Western states. Nearly all have failed, but more importantly, some have been thrown out by the courts due to "persuasive patterns of wrong doing and fraud."

While there is no proof of wrong doing in Alaska, we cannot afford to be blindsided again. Full disclosure of the funding behind initiatives from the get-go would go a long way in letting citizens decide whether proposed initiatives can pass the common "smell" test.

And, back in the original Anchorage Daily News article, Randolph confirmed part of that information.

Randolph said he knew Rich as a prominent member of the national Libertarian Party. Today, Rich is better known for his controversial role in quietly paying for initiative efforts in Western states, according to a series of news reports over the past 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

An author named Melinda Pillsbury-Foster knows more about their relationship. In the late 1970s, she writes,

in Alaska, a state with a population of only one million and an unusual set of circumstances due to the Alaska Pipe Line things had been developing. They continued to develop, but in very different directions. Several people had been elected to the state legislature as Libertarians. No matter what the size of the legislative body this was a major accomplishment.

It began with a guy named Dick Randolph, who had served two terms as a Republican state legislator in 1974 and 1974. After that he dropped out and did some thinking. Then he ran again, but this time as a Libertarian, in 1980 and then in 1982. This caused an explosion of popularity for Libertarianism in the Far North. Dick was the kind of guy who was well liked and thought of in his community. Dick encouraged another Libertarian, Ken Fanning, to run in his district in 1982 and Fanning squeaked in, too. Then Randolph decided to run for governor as a Libertarian in 1984. He lost, naturally. But Alaskans were happy that Randolph had managed to rescind the state income tax. It looked like anything was possible.

Another writer named Murray Rothbard was editor of the Libertarian Forum, the monthly newsletter of the Libertarian Party in the 1980s. Rothbard explained the relationship between Howie Rich and Dick Randolph in February 1983, when he listed several Libertarian Party activists who had created their own organization within the party. Rothbard called this organization the "Crane Machine," named for its leader, Ed Crane.

Rothbard wrote that Howie Rich "ran the disastrous Guida campaign for national chair in 1981, the equally disastrous Randolph campaign in 1982, and the likewise disastrous Northrup for Governor campaign in New York in 1982."

Of Randolph, Rothbard wrote, "A special category for the straw boss of the Alaska LP. Formerly State Rep, ran disastrous campaign for Governor in 1982. Turned his entire campaign over to the Crane Machine. One has the feeling, however, that Dick could someday leave the Machine. Is rumored to be suffering from revolt within Alaska LP."

Rothbard's notes say that a man named Kent Guida, a former businessman from Maryland, "ran the calamitous Randolph campaign under Rich's supervision." Another Libertarian, Eric O'Keefe, had been the national director of the Libertarian Party, but "when ousted, went to Alaska to help Guida run the Randolph fiasco."

Rothbard ties all of these men together under the leadership of Ed Crane, and he describes Crane this way:

The Big Boss: capo di tutti capi. Main power base: Head of the Cato Institute, which moved from San Franciso to Washington, D.C. early in the Reagan Administration to be close to the Corridors of Power. Also, Boss of: Libertarian Review Foundation, and its publications Inquiry and Update; National Taxpayers Legal Fund; and the Crane Machine in the Libertarian Party. Formerly, boss of Students for a Libertarian Society, and formerly, National Chairman of the LP. Managed the LP presidential campaigns in 1976 and 1980.