On Monday we saw two prime examples of old guard ugly politics on display.
One was pretty obvious and more difficult to understand, one was fairly easy to understand and slightly less obvious. One involves the election of public officials and the other is about what happens after those public officials are elected.
Last week Rep. Lora Reinbold, R-Eagle River, voted against the budget that was passed by the state House. She believed the House did not cut enough money out of the budget and knowing there were enough votes to pass it, her vote was more of a protest vote.
The problem with this is the majority caucus requires all its members to vote with it on the budget.
Reinbold explained her punishment for this transgression on her Facebook page Monday evening, "Today because of my vote against an unsustainable budget I was stripped of my Co-Chair of the Joint Armed Services Committee and removed from Legislative Council as well as removed from the Rules Committee. In addition I was removed as Vice Chair of education. Also I was asked to let go of all but one my staff who must take a huge pay cut."
House Speaker Mike Chenault said of the sanctions, "If you don't follow the rules, there's consequences."
If that seems a little un-American to you -- it should.
The concept that a vote is sacred is something ingrained in us at an early age. In the United States selling your vote is illegal, we vote in private booths and cover our ballot in a sheath until it's shot into a machine that keeps our vote private to everyone except for us.
Legislators also cannot sell their votes. They learned that in pretty dramatic fashion when the FBI executed search warrants at legislative offices around the state in 2006. Many legislators were indicted for taking money in exchange for voting the way former VECO CEO Bill Allen told them to vote.
Now, the majority caucus requiring members to vote a particular way is certainly not the same as legislators selling their votes for cash. However, it should be similarly illegal.
These issues probably seem new to most Alaskans, but they are not. Caucus rules such as these have existed since the caucus system began. The average Alaska voter never hears about these rules because most legislators fall into line and do as they are told.
Also on Monday, a story ran in Alaska Dispatch News about Art Hackney forming a super PAC to support mayoral candidate Dan Coffey. Anchorage politics is getting its own Koch Brothers-type group to provide more money to promote Coffey, because if there's anything his campaign needs -- it's more cash.
In the ADN article about the super PAC Hackney says, "I see Coffey as the kind of guy who labored away behind the scenes." Does this sound to anybody else like "the guy making back room deals in private without public input?"
The super PAC concept is perfectly legal. It's a group of contributors that put their money together in order to support an issue or candidate. They are not permitted to coordinate with the campaign or the candidate at all. We have seen this already in the mayor's race, on a smaller scale, with the Palmer-based group Alaska Republican Assembly supporting Amy Demboski.
The super PAC and the caucus rules have a lot in common. Both are perfectly legal. Both are fairly difficult concepts for the average voter to understand. Both muddy the waters of transparency. And both are part of what turn people off to politics.
The processes of electing public officials and the work they do after they are elected should both be as simple to understand as possible. The easier it is to understand, the more people will be involved with both processes. Maybe that's not what people in power really want?
The more complicated rules and processes there are, the more the average voter stays away from the process. When legislative bodies do things like adding stuff to legislation that has nothing to do with the original piece of legislation as "riders," or when candidates misrepresent their position in a haze of legalese, the average voter starts to shut down, which makes it easier for elected officials or candidates to do things that they'd rather us not know about.
The word politics has gained a negative connotation. It's become an ugly concept, which is truly unfortunate, because the business of policymaking is so important to everybody, since it affects us all. We saw why that concept has become so ugly in two ways in one day this week.
Mike Dingman is a fifth-generation Alaskan who was born and raised in Anchorage. He is a former UAA student body president and has worked, studied and volunteered in Alaska politics since the late '90s. Email, michaeldingman@gmail.com.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, e-mail commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com