http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1151227462107380.xml&coll=2 – Amari receives endorsement from former opponent in PSC runoff race.
http://www.al.com/opinion/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1151227532107380.xml&coll=2 – Commentary reviews history of US utilizing cheap immigrant labor to build strong economy, urges leaders to create a path to citizenship for those who have labored to build country.
http://www.al.com/opinion/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1151227013107380.xml&coll=2 – Rep. Artur Davis defends efforts to extend Voting Rights Act.
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/opinion/editorials/060625a.shtml - Editorial calls for debate on why Alabama’s growth lags that of the nation in mid-decade census data.
http://www.gadsdentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060625/NEWS/606250325/1137/NEWS - Article profiles former Auburn professor Wayne Flynt.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060625/NEWS/606250323/1001 - Legal observers speculate on outcome of Siegelman trial.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060625/NEWS02/606250312/1009 - Federal judge refuses to dismiss case over community based services for disabled.
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060625/NEWS/606250356/1012/editorial1 - Editorial once again calls for ban on PAC-to-PAC transfers in light of recent congressional reports outlining transfer of casino contributions to fight lottery in Alabama.
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060625/NEWS/606250361/1013/EDITORIAL2 - Commentary by AG Troy King criticizes recent ABA report calling for death penalty moratorium.
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060625/NEWS/606250358/1013/EDITORIAL2 - “Alabama Exposure” Dana Beyerle’s weekly political roundup for the NYTimes regional papers.
FROM TODAY’S ANNISTON STAR:
State & Region News
Primary revealed power of PAC
By Brian Lyman
Star Capitol Correspondent
06-25-2006
MONTGOMERY – Neither political race appeared competitive at first.
The incumbents were powerful members of the state Senate, sitting on well-stocked re-election accounts.
The opponents in their respective primaries had filed at the last minute. Neither had done any fund raising. One was a convicted felon.
But by the morning of June 7, Randolph County Circuit Court Clerk Kim Benefield had defeated six-term incumbent Gerald Dial 53 to 46 percent in the Senate District 13 Democratic primary. In Senate District 11, Sen. Jim Preuitt had to spend $376,000 to defeat former Talladega mayor Larry Barton, who was convicted of embezzlement in 1994.
Both challengers were aided by two political action committees (or PACs) that received the lion’s share of their funding from four powerful Democratic state senators whom Dial and Preuitt clashed with in the spring legislative session. The PACs gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Benefield and Barton in “in-kind” contributions, dwarfing their fund raising by margins of more than 20-1.
The process the senators used to move the money is called a PAC-to-PAC transfer, and critics say it conceals political donors from public scrutiny, thereby making a mockery of transparency requirements in campaign-finance laws.
“A politician can receive money indirectly from an unpopular organization and not have to answer for it to the voters,” said David Lanoue, chairman of the political science department at the University of Alabama. “A Republican could indirectly get money from the AEA (Alabama Education Association), or a Democrat could indirectly get money from a business interest, without alienating his or her core constituency.”
The PACs helped pay for fliers and radio and television advertisements that attacked the incumbents throughout the month of May. The races were nasty from the word go, with both sides accusing the other of being held captive by special interests.
“I don’t think I’ve ever seen a primary campaign season in which the ads were as dirty and there were so many dirty tricks played,” said Gary Palmer, president of the Alabama Policy Institute.
Preuitt could run photos of Barton being led away in chains on television to gain an edge in the race. But Dial, who accused Benefield of accepting money from trial lawyers, could not prove his charges — or trace the source of her campaign’s funding.
“All it does is, it hides money for those who want to maintain control of it,” he said.
While Benefield raised about $18,000 for her campaign, Senate Majority PAC made more than $270,000 in contributions for her campaign. Real Democrat PAC, itself funded heavily by Senate Majority PAC, spent $206,000 on behalf of Barton’s campaign.
Records at the Alabama Secretary of State’s office and campaign-finance filings by the PACs show they were funded by Senate President Pro Tem Lowell Barron, D-Fyffe; Senate Finance and Taxation Education committee chairman Hank Sanders, D-Selma; Senate Majority Leader Zeb Little, D-Cullman, and Senate Finance and Taxation General Fund chairman Roger Bedford, D-Russellville.
Who contributed to their campaigns — and, indirectly, to Benefield and Barton’s — is anyone’s guess. By moving money between different political action committees, Alabama politicians don’t have to disclose the source of contributions, making it difficult for ordinary citizens to determine who bankrolls a particular campaign.
Barron, Bedford, Little and Sanders moved a total $585,000 into Senate Majority PAC in April and May. The PAC made in-kind contributions — purchases on behalf of a candidate’s campaign — for Benefield and Democratic Senate candidate Joe Sawyer, a challenger to State Senator Jimmy Holley, D-Elba, who also had clashed with the Senate’s Democratic leadership.
Senate Majority PAC also transferred $233,000 to Real Democrat PAC, which provided Barton with his in-kind contributions.
Little’s campaign contributed $180,000 to Senate Majority PAC, but Little says he did not keep track of how the money would be spent.
“My primary goal is on getting re-elected,” he said. “And I do believe that the Democratic senators ought to organize together.”
Little faces electronics executive Harold Sachs in the November general election, but did not face a primary opponent this spring.
Barron and Sanders did not return messages seeking comment, nor did Steve Raby, the treasurer of Senate Majority PAC. Bedford could not be reached. Dial accused Barron of funding Benefield during the primary campaign, and while Barron denied ties to Benefield’s campaign, he did not hide his hope that Dial would lose.
Benefield on Friday offered a brief, written statement, saying “PAC to PAC transfers is a legislative issue. I will study that issue when I am serving the people of the 13th district as Senator and I will vote in the way that is best for them.”
Before she faxed her statement, Benefield referred questions to consultant Del Averett, who said he could not discuss Senate Majority PAC because Benefield had not authorized him.
While the four senators contributed much of Senate Majority PAC’s money, the source of their money, at least after Jan. 31, is unknown. None of the four faced primary opposition, and Ed Packard of the Elections Division in the Secretary of State’s office says the Attorney General’s office has ruled that candidates who do not face primary opposition do not have to file campaign-finance reports for the primary season.
The question of whether they have to report campaign spending is still open, he said. “Other activity, I think that’s part of the question,” he said.
Messages left at the Attorney General’s office were not returned.
Barron, Bedford, Little and Sanders have not filed any campaign finance reports since Jan. 31. Records from Senate Majority PAC show that in April and May, Sanders contributed $230,000 to Senate Majority PAC; Little $180,000; Bedford $100,000, and Barron $75,000.
Dial and Preuitt weren’t David fighting Goliath. Both campaigns were flush with cash – Dial reported $193,000 on hand in January, Preuitt $301,000 – and both raised and spent heroic sums of money defending their seats. In May alone, Dial spent $445,000, while Preuitt spent close to $376,000.
In addition, both men had engaged in PAC-to-PAC transfers in previous years, according to their campaign filings.
While Dial’s willingness to support Gov. Bob Riley might have made him more popular in a district that went overwhelmingly to the governor in 2002, it did not endear him to leading Democrats in the Senate or among Democratic primary voters.
In addition, Little blames Preuitt for blocking legislation in 2005 that would have banned PAC-to-PAC transfers. Preuitt, currently chairman of the Senate’s Rules Committee — which decides what legislation will come to a vote on the floor — said he would revisit the issue, if re-elected.
“I would think I would look at more favorably than I have in the past,” he said. “It’s something that certainly needs strong consideration.”
Legislation that would have banned PAC-to-PAC transfers was endorsed by Riley and made it through the House this year, but did not go anywhere in the Senate.
“These bills will go as far as public outcry carries them,” Lanoue said. “I don’t sense there’s that widespread anger over that widespread practice. I would suspect most Alabamians aren’t familiar with it.”
While most politicians say they would support a ban, the Alabama Policy Institute’s Palmer says it’s easy for them to say that because bans rarely get anywhere in the state’s upper chamber.
“It’s hard to say who’s really sincere about it, because everyone who knows anything about what goes on in Montgomery knows it’s dead in the Senate,” he said. “So it’s a free ticket for whatever you want, because there’s very little chance that they’re going to have to back up their words.”
Despite his use of PAC-to-PAC transfers this year, Little says he supports a ban.
“When money is washed from PAC to PAC to PAC, you can’t tell who is supporting a candidate,” he said. “That’s why it needs to be changed. People need to know who is supporting a particular candidate.”
PAC-to-PAC transfers allow politicians and special-interest groups to funnel money between political action committees (PACs), which usually do most of the fund raising in political campaigns. Here’s how transfers worked in the Democratic primaries in Senate Districts 11 (Larry Barton vs. Jim Preuitt) and 13 (Kim Benefield vs. Gerald Dial).
1. Sens. Lowell Barron, D-Fyffe; Roger Bedford, D-Russellville; Zeb Little, D-Cullman, and Hank Sanders, D-Selma move $585,000 from their own campaigns to an organization called Senate Majority PAC in April and May. Those contributions are the bulk of the PAC’s $790,000 raised in that time.
2. Senate Majority PAC makes $270,000 in “in-kind” contributions to Benefield’s campaign between April 25 and May 23. In-kind contributions are purchases made on behalf of a candidate by an outside organization, like a PAC. These can include anything from advertising to office supplies. On her own, Benefield raises $10,000 that month, and spends $13,283.21 (using $7,500 raised in mid-April).
3. While making purchases on behalf of Benefield, Senate Majority PAC transfers $233,855 to Real Democrat PAC between April 25 and May 30. Those transfers make up the majority of Real Democrat’s $305,885 in funds.
4. Real Democrat PAC makes $206,911 in “in-kind” contributions to Barton, who on his own raises $15,100 over that time, and spends $12,322.11.
5. Benefield wins the June 6 primary over Dial; Preuitt defeats Barton.
6. While most of Senate Majority PAC’s money comes from the Barron, Bedford, Little and Sanders campaigns, none of the four were required to file campaign finance reports because they did not face primary opposition. None of the campaigns have filed campaign-finance reports since January, and the extent of their funding — and the identity of their donors — is unknown.
Source: Secretary of State’s office
Op-Ed Columns
The sky didn’t fall in Alabama after all
By Dick Armey
06-25-2006
Special to The Star
Turns out the sky didn’t fall after all. Remember the 2003 debate over Amendment 1, the state constitutional referendum that would have created the largest tax increase in Alabama’s history? The talking heads and professional alarmists had a field day, earnestly and ominously predicting that prisoners would be let loose and high school football would lose its funding.
But Alabama’s taxpayers knew better than to buy the scare tactics, defeating Gov. Bob Riley’s $1.2 billion tax hike by a 2-to-1 margin.
And, the predictions that the sky would fall if Amendment 1 failed were not even close. Three years after voters rejected higher taxes, the state is rolling in a $700 million budget surplus. Prisoners are not roaming the streets, high schools still play football on Friday night, and no one kicked grandma out of the nursing home. Turns out the taxpayers called the liberal bluff that massive tax hikes were needed to avoid budget shortages.
So what happened? After years of legislative mismanagement and spiraling spending, Alabama faced a $675 million budget deficit in 2003. But when the voters refused to let Riley pass the buck onto Alabama taxpayers, the governor had no choice but to buckle down, prioritize and reduce nonessential spending.
Working closely with the Legislature, he cut out a half-billion dollars in line-item spending and $40 million of pork from the budget. They also shrunk the size of the state bureaucracy by reducing the number of state employees and vehicles. It wasn’t easy, as there was tremendous political pressure from big government interest groups, but they got the job done.
But that’s not the entire story. Though the tax rates remained the same, tax revenues actually increased over the last three years. As the economy grew, over 1,200 industries, 50,000 jobs and 100,000 new residents moved into the state. With more people and businesses paying taxes, overall revenues increased. Keeping taxes low makes Alabama more attractive for business and investment.
Alabama is just one of several states that balanced their budgets through economic growth and fiscal restraint instead of suffocating tax hikes. Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney recently closed a $3 billion budget deficit without raising any taxes. In Mississippi, Gov. Haley Barbour eliminated a $700 million shortfall without raising taxes, despite being hit by multiple hurricanes. State governments became relatively leaner while taxpayers avoided the short end of the stick.
More important, holding the line against higher taxes in the lean years after 9/11 resulted in quicker and stronger recovery today. It’s a win-win approach.
Riley finally seems to understand today what the voters already knew in 2003. Better late than never. His latest $60 million tax relief package, unanimously approved by the House and Senate, was a step in the right direction. But that’s not enough. It is not even one-tenth of the surplus economic growth has brought the government coffers.
Pro-growth tax relief will help continue Alabama’s virtuous cycle of lower taxes, more economic growth and a more efficient government. Research consistently shows that when it comes to taxes, businesses and residents vote with their feet; and if given the incentives, they will most certainly vote for Alabama, bringing jobs for the people and revenue for the state.
But this lesson is lost on many pundits who insist on frittering away the surplus on more government programs. It’s easy to spend when the money is there; but when times are tough, will the Alabama politicians have the courage to cut spending once again?
Increasing funding for bureaucratic programs would put Alabama back on the vicious tax-and-spend cycle that it took so long to break. That’s exactly what’s happening in New Jersey. Although it has some of the highest state taxes in America, it sits in $4.5 billion of red ink due to the endless tax-and-spend cycle: Every revenue increase is met with more spending, while every budget deficit results in another tax hike.
Thankfully, in 2003, Alabama voters saved the state from a New Jersey-like spiral by putting the brakes on crushing taxes. In 2006, it was only fitting that Riley and the Legislature thanked hard-working Alabama citizens by returning some of their surplus tax dollars.
Dick Armey is former majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives and current chairman of FreedomWorks.
(R) Jeff Sessions (1-19)
(D) Vivian Figures (33-1)
(D) Artur Davis (1-49)
(R) Mike Hubbard (13-1)
(?) David Bronner (OFF)
