ADP: Stevens Hiding Behind Expensive Lawyers And National Politics Instead Of Answering Questions About The FBI Investigation Or Legal Bills

Anchorage, AK – The Alaska Democratic Party (ADP) reacted today to Senator Ted Stevens and called his recent allegations conspiracy theories. Yesterday, Stevens refused to answer tough questions about his record on oil speculation, which has caused gas prices to skyrocket leaving Alaska families behind. He then accused the ADP of being controlled by outside interests. The ADP issued the following statement in response:

“Senator Stevens continues to refuse to answer Alaskans’ tough questions. Instead, he dodges and distracts the public with conspiracy theories. It’s absurd to think that anyone other than Alaskans run the Alaska Democratic Party. This is becoming a pattern – Stevens hiding behind expensive lawyers and national politics instead of answering questions about the FBI investigation and how he’s paying his legal bills. We expect Senator Stevens to answer hard questions and take responsibility for his record.”

– Kay Brown, spokeswoman for the Alaska Democratic Party.

On July 30, 2007, Stevens’ home was raided by FBI and IRS agents as part of a court authorized search warrant. It has been 333 days since the raid on Senator Stevens’ home and he still refuses to discuss the case or how he is paying for his legal fees.

Oil Speculation Forces Alaska Families To Pay More At The Pump

Anchorage, Alaska – As headlines across the country decry oil speculation as the cause for the pain at the pump, Senator Ted Stevens is playing election year politics as he claims to be rescuing consumers by suddenly supporting regulation for energy futures market. However, Stevens has repeatedly done just the opposite. In fact, in 2000, Stevens was Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee when he allowed a provision to deregulate energy futures to be added to his appropriations bill without undergoing the typical committee process. With the current weakening of the housing market, many investors pulled money out of real estate and put it instead into commodities, like oil. This has led to a flurry of unregulated market speculation in the oil futures markets, thus driving gas prices to record highs.

“Now that Stevens is facing a real race to keep his Senate seat, it shouldn’t be surprising that he is flip-flopping,” said Bethany Lesser, spokeswoman for the Alaska Democratic Party. “It’s nice that Stevens is doing the right thing now, but Alaskans shouldn’t have to wait every six years to have their senator on their side. When it comes to real issues like energy prices, Alaska families deserve better than election-year politics.”

In December 2000, as Stevens oversaw the Consolidated Appropriations Act, a provision written by Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), which recently has received quite a bit of negative attention in the presidential campaign, was added at the last minute to the final 11,000 page bill to deregulate the energy markets. Commonly known as the “Enron Loophole,” the Commodity Futures Modernization Act exempted electronic energy trades from federal regulation. The provision bypassed the usual committee hearing and vote process and was streamlined into the legislation by Stevens.

Stevens has been a long time advocate for deregulation of energy futures. In 2002, Stevens voted against an amendment that would have provided regulatory oversight of energy trading markets. [Roll Call 61, S.AMDT 2989, 4/10/2002] In 2003, Stevens voted against an amendment to protect electric ratepayers from manipulation and contrivance of the energy market and an amendment that would have ensured that consumers and competitive markets are protected from false and misleading information. [Roll Call 439, S.AMDT 2087, 11/5/2003, Roll Call 436, S.AMDT 2083, 11/5/2003]

Just this month, Stevens continued his streak of voting against consumers by helping to block the Consumer-First Energy Act. The legislation needed 60 votes in the Senate to move forward but only received 51. The Consumer-First Energy Act would have taken several immediate steps to lower out-of-control gas prices, which now average more than $4 per gallon nationwide. [Roll Call Vote #146, 6/10/2008]

# # #

In what will go down as the supreme wrist-slap for the ultimate case of wreckless drunken driving, the U.S. Supreme Court has slashed punitive damages against Exxon Mobil Corp., leaving the oil giant with obligations equal to about four days’ worth of its profits.

The ruling in a case involving the country’s greatest oil spill, the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster, is the latest gift from an allegedly “conservative” Supreme Court that gave us the Bush presidency.

The case, centered on the fouling of 1,200 miles of Alaska beaches, has gone on since 1994.

A jury initially awarded $5 billion in punitive damages to the fishermen, Native Alaskans, cannery workers, landowners, businesses, and other class-action plaintiffs. As the case bounced back and forth between appellate and federal district courts, the award was cut to $4 billion and raised to $4.5 billion.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals eventually reduced the award to $2.5 billion. On appeal from Exxon Mobil, the Supremes yesterday reduced it to $507.5 million.

It means plaintiffs will receive $15,000 - instead of $75,000 - if they have lived through Exxon Mobil’s prolonged stalling and appeals.

A total of 8,000 plaintiffs have died, including Gary Kompkoff, the young chief in the Prince William Sound village of Tatitlek, closest to where the tanker ran aground.

In its ruling Tuesday, the “conservative” court ruled that a one-to-one ratio between punitive and compensatory damages was “a fair upper limit” for punitive awards in maritime cases involving reckless conduct.

However, even the larger $2.5 billion award would have amounted to only three weeks’ worth of Exxon Mobil profits.

Can anybody recall Congress enacting a one-to-one damage ratio, or declaring a “fair upper limit” to damages?

Two dissenting Supremes, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer, wondered about that.

“The new law made by the Court should have been left to Congress,” Ginsberg wrote in her dissenting opinion.

Weren’t such Supremes as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas touted as “Strick Constructionists?” Haven’t conservative legal scholars railed against “legislating from the bench”?

“It is remarkable that the most conservative justices on the Court — Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Thomas — have endorsed this instance of judge-made law that saves a huge corporation two billion dollars when they generally claim to want to avoid having judges make the law,” said Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, an advocacy group.

Exxon posted record first-quarter profits of $10.9 billion in 2008. During 2007, the company posted earnings of $40.6 billion.

Punitive damages are designed as punishment, and to discourage corporations from repeating their misdeeds.

When the Exxon Valdez hit Bligh Reef on Good Friday in 1989, Capt. Joseph Hazelwood was the only person on board having a special license to navigate dangerous waters containing the reef - and flush with icebergs from the calving Columbia Glacier. He was not on the bridge.

Hazelwood had, in fact, been drinking Scotch at the Pipeline Club in Valdez before his vessel sailed, and had previously sought treatment for alcoholism.

“Spilling the oil was an accident, but putting a relapsed alcoholic in charge of a supertanker was not,” the 9th Circuit ruled in upholding the higher amount of punitive damages.

The tanker spilled nearly 12 million gallons of crude oil into pristine Prince William Sound - although some industry critics say the actual amount may have been much higher.The spill coated islands and shorelines on the west side of Prince William Sound, hit Kodiak Island, and was eventually felt as far down the coast as Katmai National Park.
An estimated 26,000 gallons of oil remain in the water and along shorelines, according to plaintiffs’ claims.

“Nearly 20 years later, the Northwest’s fisheries and environment are still affected by Exxon’s negligence, and years of legal wrangling shouldn’t allow them to fall short of their responsibility to make amends,” Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said yesterday.

“Unfortunately, today’s decision allows Exxon to shortchange the people who have been hurt the most and sends the wrong message to those who pollute our nation’s waters.”

What to do? A simple suggestion: Remember!

Alaskans should remember the blanket safety assurances from Senator-for-life Ted Stevens.

“Werner von Braun, you know, the spaceman, assured me that all of the technology of the space program will be put into the doggone tankers, and there will not be one drop of oil in Prince William Sound,” Uncle Ted once assured worried Prince William Sound fishermen.

The old reprobate is up for reelection this year.

The Anchorage Times, voice of the oil industry in Alaska, snorted: “The fears about damage from oil spills are like the fears of Henny Penny when she ran to tell the king that the sky was falling in.”

As desperate cleanup efforts began, Alaska’s Congressman-for-life Don Young was giving a speech for money in California. Young was moose hunting later in the year when tanker safety legislation came up before the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee.

Americans, those with no interest in the case of Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, have something to remember as well.

The moderate minority on the Supreme Court is aging.

The Republicans’ nominee-in-waiting, Sen. John McCain, has suggested that Justices Roberts, Alito and Thomas are models for the type of appointments he will make to the high scourt.

If he wins, we can anticipate a court that will uphold state power, and corporate power.

The Air Force has been ordered to investigate whether officials lobbied members of Congress improperly on a plan to merge military bases.

Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England asked the secretary of the Air Force  —days before he was forced to resign  — to conduct an internal investigation after Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) raised concerns over the Air Force’s actions.

McCain, the GOP candidate for president, believes a provision in the 2008 emergency supplemental sponsored by Sens. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), the leading defense appropriators, was the result of lobbying by Air Force officials. Similar language is in the House bill.

The measure would allow a military service secretary or the head of another federal agency to delay or veto a decision by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) on “joint basing,” an initiative that requires branches of the military to consolidate bases to save money.

The Inouye -Stevens language would prohibit funds from being spent on the initiative if a military service secretary finds joint basing would not significantly save money or that it would hurt the military’s morale.

The stakes could be high for Hawaii, Inouye’s state, as Hickam Air Force Base is slated to merge with the Navy’s Pearl Harbor base. Congressional sources said, however, that concern about joint basing is spread across the country.

The call for an investigation comes at a tough time for the Air Force.

The Air Force was embarrassed by the disclosure that it had twice lost track of nuclear weapons; Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley were forced to resign over the matter earlier this month.

Additionally, the General Accounting Office last week upheld Boeing’s protest of the Air Force’s decision to award a contract to build refueling tankers to Northrop Grumman.

The language in the spending bills follows a 2005 BRAC decision that the Air Force would manage six joint bases, the Navy four and the Army two. Congress approved the commission’s recommendations into law.

McCain expressed concern about the Inouye-Stevens language in a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates in mid-May. In it, he claimed that senior Air Force officials worked on the legislation with Senate members. McCain said the language could negate the 2005 BRAC decision.

“I believe it is inappropriate for senior Air Force officials to lobby legislators to delay or overturn BRAC decisions,” McCain wrote.

McCain said the Air Force already has the flexibility to resolve its concerns with the Pentagon leadership about the allocation of appropriate resources without resorting to congressional intervention.

McCain also expressed concern that the proposed legislation could open the door to other provisions seeking to affect the latest BRAC round.

In a written response to McCain, England said the Air Force was tasked with the investigation. His letter said the Office of the Secretary of Defense was not aware of any lobbying efforts, and that the Pentagon “does not condone” efforts to undermine the BRAC  joint basing recommendation.

“The Secretary of the Air Force has been asked to conduct an internal investigation of this matter and to recommend appropriate actions,” England wrote in the May 28 letter.

England also said that the Pentagon “strongly opposes” the provision in the supplemental and that the Pentagon would recommend that the president veto any bill that “weakens, delays, prevents implementation of, or otherwise affects the BRAC process.”

However, the most recent Statement of Administration Policy does not touch on the issue and could give the provision a pass.

While the Air Force publicly has supported joint basing, it has also expressed some concerns.

Services that lose management of a base are supposed to turn over the land as well as operating dollars to the new manager. The Air Force would prefer to keep controlling its real estate and budget, while the new manager would provide a whole range of services.

However, the military services recently agreed that the Air Force would be in charge of running all airfield operations at the joint bases. Traditionally, Air Force installations have their wing commanders run the airfield operations, while in the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, airfield operations have always been installation functions.

Nonetheless, congressional sources said concerns over joint basing have spread across the country. Local communities fear that joint basing could create clashes between services, negatively affect employment and hamper military rotation assignments.

The Air Force was the only service that went public with its concerns, according to Mike Yuen, Inouye’s spokesman.

“Sen. Inouye and Sen. Stevens want to catch the attention of the Pentagon to make it slow down and rethink the joint basing approach, because their feeling is that joint basing can create more problems than provide for military efficiency,” Yuen said.

In congressional testimony, the Air Force has presented a united front in favor of joint basing.

“We are committed to making joint basing a raging success,” said Kathleen Ferguson, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for Installations. “The Air Force fully supports the spirit and intended results of [the] joint basing provision of BRAC 2005.”

She added that the Air Force has expressed concern related to the execution strategy of joint basing, which may affect mission. “However, the Air Force is not advocating any position that would inhibit carrying out any BRAC recommendation,” she said.

The provision in the 2008 supplemental is set to expire on Sept. 30 since the supplemental only covers fiscal year 2008, according to Yuen. However, the issue could resurface when the Senate takes up the 2009 defense authorization bill after the Independence Day recess. At press time, it was not clear whether the Senate would vote on the supplemental this week.

The Pentagon and the Air Force did not provide an update on the investigation by press time.

]]> http://www.retireted.com/news/2008/06/25/usaf-ordered-to-probe-lobbying/feed http://www.retireted.com/news/2008/06/20/afl-cio-won%e2%80%99t-back-stevens http://www.retireted.com/news/2008/06/20/afl-cio-won%e2%80%99t-back-stevens#comments Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:41:49 +0000 Roll Call http://www.retireted.com/news/?p=162 By Shira Toeplitz
Roll Call Staff

June 20, 2008, 4:19 p.m.

Bucking tradition, the Alaska AFL-CIO has endorsed Sen. Ted Stevens’ (R-Alaska) opponent for the first time in recent history.

In what the union described as an unusually early decision, the 60,000-member organization voted this week to endorse Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) instead.

Alaska AFL-CIO President Vince Beltrami said the union endorsed Stevens in all of his re-election campaigns in recent memory, though Stevens had either a minimal or token challenger in many of those campaigns.

“My sense, having been a 20-year resident of the state, is that he’s not been not endorsed for decades,” Beltrami said. “So this is a significant departure.”

Beltrami lauded Begich’s support for the Employee Free Choice Act, the most significant pro-union legislation in decades, which Stevens did not support.

In the state’s competitive at-large House race, the union endorsed Rep. Don Young (R) and former state House Minority Leader Ethan Berkowitz (D) in their respective primaries.

Young is getting a tough primary challenge from Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell (R), who has the backing of many anti-earmark and conservative interest groups. Berkowitz is favored to win his primary against 2006 nominee Diane Benson.

Beltrami noted Young’s vote for the EFCA and said that even if Young loses his primary, ”there’s no way we’d get behind Sean Parnell.”

The AFL-CIO said it will revisit its endorsement for the at-large seat after the Aug. 26 primary.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/26127-1.html

Posted by jmapes June 19, 2008 09:14AM

Yes, let’s stipulate that the Republicans are having some extraordinary troubles in what we in the Greater Northwest call our Back 40 (otherwise known as Alaska). The state’s senior senator, Republican Ted Stevens, is caught up in a corruption investigation and for the first time in this geologic age faces the real prospect of losing re-election.

Now The Fix passes on word that a poll from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee shows that Republican John McCain only has a two-point lead over Democrat Barack Obama.

This is hard to believe. Alaska has gone Democratic in one presidential election since statehood - the Lyndon Johnson landslide in 1964. In 2004, President Bush beat Democrat John Kerry, 62-35. Only eight states were more Republican.

It’s easy to dismiss the DSCC poll, given its partisan provenance. But Rasmussen Reports, an independent pollster, found McCain with only a four-point lead a week ago. In May, two polls put the McCain lead at between 5 and 7 points.

Obama has indicated that he intends to expand the number of states in play. And he almost certainly will have the money he needs to gamble in places the Democrats usually avoid, now that he’s opted out of the public financing system. The Republicans may have to play defense in a state they can usually just mark as safely R.

By Katherine Rizzo, CQ Staff

From WSJ.com Political Perceptions

The guy running for re-election to the Senate from Alaska is a cantankerous bully who seems to be accused of everything except tossing someone in the snow on Christmas Eve. One guy running against him already did that.

Ted Stevens , an 84-year-old Republican who’s been a senator for 40 years (come this Christmas Eve), is in the political fight of his life.

His likely re-election opponent, Democrat Mark Begich, 46, is mayor of Anchorage. Since there’s an August primary to get through, the two aren’t officially running against each other yet, but their respective parties are already sniping through a pair of Web sites — BegichBaggage.com and RetireTed.com.

The contest is shaping up to be the meanest congressional race in the country, or at least runner-up.

The Democrats have started reminding Mr. Stevens’s constituents about an investigation into his ties to an oil service company, VECO, headed by a pal who has been convicted of bribery, and the search of Mr. Stevens’s house by FBI and IRS agents looking into whether his VECO friend paid for a major remodeling of the place. There have been no charges against Mr. Stevens but also no resolution. So the investigation is hanging over him in this election season.

Not to be outdone, the Republicans’ Begich Baggage Web site points out that the anticipated challenger:

• Had his own trouble with the IRS;

• Defaulted on some loans;

• And he ain’t Santa Claus.

The eviction — for which the Republicans provide photocopies of court documents on their Web site — happened in 1993. Julie Hasquet, the campaign press secretary, said Begich rented to low-income tenants and “went to every length possible to accommodate” those who fell behind in their rent payments.

“But once in awhile, cases went to court and involved eviction proceedings. In those cases, the judge sets the date by which a tenant must be out of a unit if they have not paid their bill,” she said. “Mark had no control over what a judge decided and would certainly never intentionally have someone evicted on Christmas Eve.”

A Matter of Timing

washingtonpost.com’s Politics Blog

Posted at 02:33 PM ET, 06/18/2008

Obama Coattails in Alaska?

A Democratic-funded poll out of Alaska suggests that Barack Obama’s pledge to expand the traditional Electoral College playing field this fall may well find fertile soil in places that haven’t seen a competitive presidential race in decades.

John McCain leads Obama 44 percent to 42 percent in Alaska, with Libertarian nominee Bob Barr taking 3 percent, according to the Global Strategy Group survey, which was conducted for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and obtained by The Fix.

(For Senate junkies out there, the poll also showed Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, the likely Democratic nominee, ahead of GOP Sen. Ted Stevens.)

Those numbers are startling on their face and all the more stunning when considering recent presidential elections in the Last Frontier. In 2004, President George W. Bush won 61 percent in Alaska compared with just 35.5 percent for John Kerry. Four years earlier, Bush won 59 percent to 28 percent over Al Gore. The Fix, no math major, was able to divine that the average percentage of the Alaska vote for the Democratic presidential nominee in the last two elections was 31.6 percent.

The last Democratic presidential candidate to win the state was Lyndon Johnson in 1964, who crushed Barry Goldwater 66 percent to 34 percent. Since then, the best showing was Hubert Humphrey 43 percent showing in 1968. No Democrat since then has broken 36 percent of the vote.

Is it possible then — given that mountain of contrary evidence — to believe that Obama can carry Alaska in the fall?

Probably not. But Obama’s ability to remain within shouting distance in a place like Alaska means other down-ballot Democrats — Begich in particular — won’t have to run 25 points ahead of their party’s presidential nominee in order to win in the fall.

Back in 2004, as Bush was winning the state by 26 points, newly appointed Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) was in a extremely tight race with former governor Tony Knowles. Despite myriad problems with the campaign — including the shadow of her unpopular father who also happened to be the state’s governor — Murkowski beat Knowles 48.6 percent to 45.5 percent.

Anyone familiar with that race acknowledges that without the Bush-Kerry matchup at the top of the ticket, Knowles might well have won. As it was, he overperformed the Democratic presidential nominee by ten points but still came up short.

This new poll out of Alaska suggests that Begich won’t have such a drag from the top of the ticket this time around. And while the poll is particularly relevant to the Last Frontier, there are any number of other Senate races where Obama’s strength (even if he ultimately loses) could have a major impact.

In Mississippi, for example, where former governor Ronnie Musgrove (D) is challenging appointed Sen. Roger Wicker (R), if Obama can run somewhere in the mid-40s, he makes Musgrove’s task far easier. By comparison, Kerry took 39.8 percent of the vote in the Magnolia State in 2004, and Gore received 40.7 percent in 2000.

Louisiana is another state where a strong Obama — somewhere in the mid-to-upper 40s — could do wonders for Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D) chances at reelection.

This is the first time since Landrieu won her seat in 1996 that she will have to run in a presidential year, and past history suggests it could complicate her chances. Kerry took just 42 percent of the vote in the state in 2004, and Gore 45 percent four years earlier. Given that Landrieu has never won with more than 52 percent of the vote, Obama’s ability to keep it close in the Bayou State could well be the difference between her winning and her losing.

Keep an eye on how Obama runs in hypothetical general election matchups with McCain in states like Alaska, Mississippi, Louisiana, North Carolina and Kansas — all of which will play host to Senate race of varying levels of competitiveness.

Rarely in politics is a narrow loss as good as a win, but if Obama can keep McCain from running up the score in these Republican-friendly states he may well do a world of good for the down-ballot candidates seeking Senate and House posts.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/06/obama_in_alaska.html?nav=rss_blog

“Senator Stevens is out of touch with the priorities of Alaska families,” said Bethany Lesser, spokeswoman for the Alaska Democratic Party. “This bill would have made a difference to families trying to pay their energy bills, made college more affordable, and helped Alaska companies create new jobs through investments in renewable energy. Unfortunately, Stevens continues to leave Alaska families behind.”

Specifically, The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act included:

· $18 billion increase in incentives for renewable energy entrepreneurs to promote energy independence and create jobs, including wind, solar, biofuels, energy efficiency of buildings, and research into clean coal technology.

· $3 billion in Energy Conservation Bonds to help state and local governments reduce energy costs and $1 billion to help homeowners make energy-efficiency improvements.

· Extending the college tuition deduction. College tuition in Alaska rose 29 percent since 2000 to $4,422 per year, making it more difficult to afford college. [Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Digest of Education Statistics “Average undergraduate tuition and fees and room and board rates charged for full-time students in degree-granting institutions, by type and control of institution and state or jurisdiction”]

· $3 billion in funding to continue the Secure Rural Schools Act to help schools in traditionally timber-based communities.

· Continuing the deduction for local sales tax.

· Expanding of the child tax credit to extend the $1000-per-child tax credit to reach an additional 2.9 million children nationwide.

· Extending the teacher expense deduction, which allows Alaska’s nearly 8,000 teachers to save $2 million in deductions for buying supplies for their classrooms.

· Continuing the research and development tax credit, which help American businesses innovate. More than 27,000 businesses will take this credit in 2008.

· A one-year patch for the alternative minimum tax (AMT). Without a fix, this tax would reach 27 million people nationwide this year.

Had the legislation reached the 60 votes needed to meet cloture, the final bill would have included a provision that allows plaintiffs of the Exxon Valdez oil spill to average any settlement that they receive in connection with pending litigation in the federal courts over three years for federal tax purposes and allow these individuals to use these funds to make contributions to retirement accounts. However, the bill failed 52-44, thus blocking the Exxon Valdez provision from consideration.

# # #

By ERIKA BOLSTAD
ebolstad@adn.com

(06/14/08 01:00:22)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens owes the law firm of Williams & Connolly as much as $50,000 for legal work connected to the federal investigation into renovations at his home in Girdwood overseen by a company whose executives have pleaded guilty to bribing state lawmakers. The debt to the Washington, D.C., law firm shows up in Stevens’ annual financial disclosure form, where it’s listed as ranging between $15,000 and $50,000. Stevens wouldn’t disclose the exact amount he owes the law firm, which hasn’t been paid yet. It is considered a personal debt, like a mortgage or a credit card bill.

“I work hard for Alaskans in Washington, D.C.,” Stevens said in a statement Friday. “That is my focus. My attorneys handle legal matters arising from the investigation.”

Stevens’ home in Girdwood was raided last summer by FBI and IRS agents investigating his ties to Bill Allen, who headed the oil field services company Veco Corp., which Allen since has sold. The company managed and paid some employees who worked on renovations that doubled the size of Stevens’ house in 2000.

Stevens’ legal debt pales in comparison to his fellow Alaska Republican, Rep. Don Young, who has paid out more than $1.1 million in attorney fees connected to various federal investigations. Unlike Stevens, Young paid his legal bills out of his campaign account. The Senate made the annual forms public Friday. Young and other members of the House of Representatives release their personal financial disclosure forms on Monday.

Otherwise, Stevens’ financial situation has changed little from last year. Stevens continues to hold assets worth up to $1 million in a blind trust. He has interests valued at as much as $15,000 in a racehorse, oil royalties he acquired in the 1970s with former Sen. Henry Bellmon of Oklahoma, and a small interest in the Anchorage restaurant, Sacks.

He also owns land in the Mat-Su area valued at $50,000 to $100,000, according to the form.

His wife, Catherine Stevens, who is a lawyer with Mayer Brown in Washington, D.C., does not have to disclose her salary on Stevens’ forms.

MURKOWSKI’S REVISIONS

Alaska’s other senator, Republican Lisa Murkowski, also released her disclosure forms Friday. She revised her financial disclosures going back to 2004 to clarify income from the sale of a building at 313 E St. in Anchorage. The building had been owned by a partnership she and her husband, Verne Martell, were in, Murkowski said. The sale has brought Murkowski and her husband $60,000 a year since 2004, according to the revised forms.

Murkowski’s revisions included disclosing income from the sale of a pasta company her husband once owned. The sale brought them $45,000 in 2005 and $40,800 in 2006, according to the revised forms.

Murkowski’s chief of staff, Karen Knutson, said that revisions to the senator’s past financial disclosures stemmed from their decision to self-audit Murkowski’s past forms after watchdog groups filed a complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee over how Murkowski handled a 2006 land purchase.

The controversial land deal was with a political supporter, Alaska businessman Bob Penney, who sold Murkowski and her husband Kenai riverfront property at what some critics deemed a sweetheart price.

The National Legal and Policy Center filed the ethics complaint last summer, saying that Murkowski’s 2006 disclosure was inaccurate because it was recorded improperly.

THE PENNEY LAND DEAL

Murkowski said at the time that they thought they paid a fair price for the land and that the deal was aboveboard, but that it had become a distraction, and that no property was “worth compromising the trust of the Alaska people.” Penney, a major campaign contributor to Alaska politicians, agreed to buy back the property for the $179,400 price she and her husband paid. That resale is reflected on her 2007 financial disclosure form. She also filed an amended 2006 form describing the original mortgage as a liability.

“We’re completely done with that,” Murkowski said Friday.

So far, Murkowski has not heard whether the committee intends to pursue the matter, or if her amended disclosure form is acceptable.

“They have not contacted us at all,” Knutson said, adding that she has offered the committee information several times, but that the committee hasn’t taken them up on their offer. As far as they know, it’s still pending, Knutson said.

Murkowski’s other assets in 2007 include stock holdings with a value of $180,000 to $950,000. She also holds a certificate of deposit and shares in First Bank of Ketchikan valued at $31,000 to $115,000.

Her husband received an additional $40,800 for his pasta company, and they were paid another $60,000 for their interest in the E Street building.

Anne Sutton/The Associated Press

Originally published Friday, June 13, 2008 at 11:48 a.m.
Updated Friday, June 13, 2008 at 5:40 p.m.

TO: Reporters; interested parties
FR: Alaska Democratic Party
RE: Senator Ted Stevens Record On Energy
DA:  June 12, 2008

Rising energy prices have made it difficult for Alaska families to stretch their household budgets. The average retail price per gallon of gasoline in Alaska is up nearly a dollar from June of last year, and over the past year has consistently been above the national average. [American Automobile Association.] As energy prices continue to rise, Alaska families are being left behind. In light of votes in Congress this week on energy, the AGIA discussions in the Alaska State Legislature, and Mark Begich releasing his energy plan, below is Stevens record on energy.

Just This Week, Stevens Voted Against Protecting Alaskans From Higher Gas Prices. On June 10, 2008, Senator Stevens voted to block the Consumer-First Energy Act. The legislation needed 60 votes in the Senate to move forward but only received 51. The Consumer-First Energy Act would have taken several immediate steps to lower out-of-control gas prices, which now average more than $4 per gallon nationwide. [Roll Call Vote #146, 6/10/2008]

Just This Week, Stevens Blocked The Renewable Energy And Job Creation Act. On June 10, 2008 Stevens voted to help block the Senate from proceeding to The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act which would have extended tax incentives to increase renewable energy production and proposes alternative energy solutions including encouraging the production and use of wind and solar energy. [Roll Call Vote #147, 6/10/2008]

Stevens Has Taken More Than $400,000 From The Oil & Gas Industry. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Stevens has received $418,590 in contributions from political action committees representing oil and gas companies. [Center for Responsive Politics]

Stevens Has Taken Over $100,000 From VECO Corporation Executives. According to USA Today, “Allen, Smith and other company executives gave $105,500 to Ted Stevens’ campaign and political action committee since 1990, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.” [USA Today, 8/1/2007]

Stevens Refused to Decline Exxon Campaign Contributions After 1989 Oil Spill; And Continued To Collect $13,000 Since Spill. In the year following the March 24, 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, which dumped 11 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound, Stevens refused to decline campaign contributions from Exxon. Since 1994, Stevens received $13,000 from the company since 1984. [Anchorage Daily News, “Oil PACs Donate to Young, Stevens,” 2/11/1990]

Stevens Has Received Thousands From Halliburton. Stevens’ federal campaign received $10,500 from Halliburton: [Political MoneyLine Web Site, Campaign Finance Info: Ted Stevens www.tray.com]

Ø Halliburton Passed Along $61 Million In Inflated Fuel Prices To The U.S. Government. According to a New York Times article, Pentagon officials said their reviews of the Halliburton contracts had turned up two problems, both related to a subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root. In one case, they said Halliburton failed to get a reasonable price for fuel from a subcontractor in Kuwait and had passed the inflated price along to the government. Halliburton charged the government $2.27 a gallon for 56.6 million gallons of gasoline from Kuwait, Pentagon officials said. That was $1.09 a gallon higher than the government was charged by another contractor, they added. The difference amounted to more than $61 million. [A Region Inflamed, New York Times, 12/13/2003]

Stevens Voted Against Protecting Rising Gas Prices. On March 13, 2008 Stevens voted against creating a budget point of order against any legislation that the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined could increase gas prices. [Roll Call Vote #72, 3/13/2008]

Stevens Voted Against Funding The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. On September 10, 2003, Stevens voted against adding $300 million to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) contingency fund. [Roll Call Vote #336, S.AMDT 1595, September 10, 2003]

Stevens Voted Against Regulatory Oversight Of Energy Markets. In 2002, Stevens voted against an amendment that would have provided regulatory oversight of energy trading markets. [Roll Call Vote #61, S.AMDT 2989, 4/10/2002]

Stevens Voted Against Researching the Effects of Climate Change, Greenhouse Gases and Reduce Dependence on Foreign Oil. On October 30 2003, Stevens voted against an amendment that sought to research the effects of climate change, greenhouse gases and reduce dependence on foreign oil. The amendment failed 55-43, with 6 Republicans voting for it and 9 Democrats voting against it. [Roll Call Vote #420, S 139, October 30, 2003]

Stevens Voted Against Energy Advancement And Investment. On June 21, 2007, Stevens voted against amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for energy advancement and investment. [Roll Call 223, Amdt. 1704, 6/21/2007]

Stevens Voted To Delay Action On Fuel Efficiency Standards for Cars And Trucks. In 2002, Stevens voted for an amendment that delayed action on increasing fuel efficiency standards. The amendment passed 62-38, with 19 Democrats voting for it and 6 Republicans voting against it. [Roll Call Vote #47, S.AMDT 2997, 3/13/2002]

Stevens Voted Against A Program To Provide Loans For Projects To Produce Syngas While Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions And Reliance On Petroleum And Natural Gas. On June, 19, 2007, Stevens voted against the establishment of a program to provide loans for projects to produce syngas from coal and other feedstocks while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the reliance of the United States on petroleum and natural gas. [Roll Call Vote #214, S Amdt 1614, 6/19/2007]

Stevens Voted Against Providing For The Expansion And Operation Of Liquefied Natural Gas Terminals. On June 19, 2007, Stevens voted against providing for the siting, construction, expansion and operation of liquefied natural gas terminals. [Roll Call Vote #216, S Amdt 1610, 6/19/2007]

Stevens Voted Against The Establishment Of A Federal Clean Portfolio Standard. On June 14, 2007, Stevens voted against providing for a federal clean portfolio standard. [Roll Call Vote #211, S Amdt 1538, 6/14/2008]

Stevens Blocked The Development Of A Natural Gas Pipeline Contract In Alaska. In June 2005, the natural gas company Sempra Energy said it would not pursue a natural gas pipeline contract in Alaska because of a lack of participation from Stevens and Governor Frank Murkowski in contract negotiations. According to the Anchorage Daily News: “The company claimed a lack of progress with ‘the most important players,’ mentioning Gov. Frank Murkowski and U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens.” [Anchorage Daily News, “All-Alaska Gas Line Loses Funds; SEMPRA: Energy Company Drops Support, Citing Lack of Progress With ‘The Most Important Players’,” June 2, 2005)]

WASHINGTON — Republicans are bracing for double-digit losses in the House and the prospect of four or five losses in the Senate, as they fight to hold a wide range of districts and states normally seen as safe for them, from Alaska and Colorado to Mississippi and North Carolina.

The feared setback for Republicans, coming two years after their 2006 drubbing, is unusual for several reasons. It is rare for a party to lose two election cycles in a row. And many expect losses even if their presidential candidate, John McCain, captures the White House.

¹

Democrats already hold majorities in the Senate and House. Democrats hold 49 seats in the Senate, and they often have the votes of the chamber’s two independents. In the House, Democrats have 235 seats compared with 199 for Republicans.

But a wider margin of control in both chambers would give the party a more workable majority, a change that would let it push more ambitious agendas on health care, energy policy and tax issues. While Democrats are already able to pass much of their agenda through the House, many of those bills currently get stuck in the Senate. A handful more seats in that chamber would give Democrats a better chance of overcoming filibusters, which require 60 votes to break.

“A lot of Republicans thought that 2006 was the low point, and that simply isn’t the case,” said Nathan Gonzales, political editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report, which predicts Democratic gains of eight to 12 seats in the House and three to five seats in the Senate.

“It’s like 2006 never ended for Republicans,” said Jennifer Duffy, of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which predicts Democratic gains of 10 to 20 seats in the House and four to seven in the Senate.

Already this year, Republicans have lost three House seats in special elections in Republican-leaning districts, an alarm bell for many in the party as they strategize for campaign season.

The dynamics at work: voters’ sharply negative views of President Bush and dismal feelings about the direction of the country, including rising oil and gas prices, a weak economy and fallout from the housing crisis. Even though Congress continues to register low approval ratings, voters overall appear to prefer putting Democrats in charge.

Much remains fluid in the five months that remain until Election Day, and the presidential contest between Barack Obama and Sen. McCain might sway the outcomes of House and Senate races. Republicans are hoping Sen. McCain will aid their appeal to independents and the white, working-class voters who remain leery of Sen. Obama. Sen. McCain also will deflect attention from Mr. Bush.

“McCain being at the top of the ticket improves the bad atmosphere, I think,” said Rep. Jim McCrery, a Louisiana Republican who is retiring from Congress. “I don’t think the atmosphere in November is going to be nearly as bad as it is now, or as pundits suggest.”

But, many Republicans say privately that, barring a huge gaffe by Sen. Obama, they have little hope of holding their current numbers, much less gaining ground. Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, who is heading Senate Republicans’ re-election effort, recently told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that it would be “a great night” if his party can hold Democratic pickups in the Senate to three or four seats in November.

In both houses, Democrats also have a financial advantage. At the end of April, House Democrats’ campaign arm had $45.3 million in cash on hand compared with $6.7 million for Republicans. That lets Democrats spend money on a broader swath of races and defend freshman House members whom Republicans view as most vulnerable.

The Senate Democrats’ campaign arm had $37.6 million in cash compared with $19.4 million for Republicans.

David Wasserman, who analyzes House races for the Cook Political Report, said Sen. Obama’s appeal among upper-income white voters is expected to help Democratic House candidates in suburban districts, such as those held by Republican Reps. Mark Kirk of Illinois and Dave Reichert of Washington.

Black turnout in states such as Virginia and Ohio could also help Democrats beat Republican House members. Reps. Steve Chabot of Ohio and Thelma Drake of Virginia, both Republicans, are facing more competitive races in part because their districts have high percentages of black residents who are likely to support Sen. Obama.

New York and New Jersey Republicans face a tough environment. Sen. Obama is expected to win those states, likely boosting the prospects of Democrats vying for seats left open by retirements, such as those of Reps. Jim Walsh and Tom Reynolds.

In Alaska, usually one of the most reliable Republican states, the party is in danger of losing both a House seat and a Senate seat. In an echo of the scandals that damaged Republicans two years ago, both Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young are under the cloud of a federal corruption investigation; they deny wrongdoing.

Beyond the political dynamics, Senate Republicans have the handicap of far more seats to defend than Democrats do, because they won far more seats in 2002, when the climate was more favorable to the party. And they have more incumbents retiring.

“There are 23 states that we’re defending compared to their 12,” said Rebecca Fisher, a spokeswoman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “We’re in a defensive crouch.”

The toughest Senate race for Republicans is in Virginia, where popular former Gov. Mark Warner, a Democrat, is running for the open seat left by retiring Republican Sen. John Warner. Also challenging are highly competitive races in New Hampshire and New Mexico, another open seat.

Republicans are seen having just one Senate opportunity to pick up a seat — the one held by Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, which has trended more Republican after Hurricane Katrina displaced many of the state’s residents.

Write to Sarah Lueck at sarah.lueck@wsj.com²

The Senate today failed to invoke cloture, 50-44, on a nearly $120 billion tax bill extending a host of expiring provisions like the research and development credit and boosting incentives for wind, solar, biodiesel, clean-coal and other projects to help spur alternative energy development. The bill would provide a one-year patch for the alternative minimum tax as well. While that provision was not offset, the rest of the bill would be largely paid for by scaling back two tax breaks deemed relatively non-controversial by many in the business community. “This vote is about jobs, energy and paying America’s bills,” said Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus. But Republicans opposed paying for extensions of current-law tax policies. “Once again, our Democrat friends never miss an opportunity to sock Americans with a new tax hike,” said Senate Minority Leader McConnell. They also objected to other provisions in the bill, including a $1.6 billion tax break for trial lawyers and application of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements to new bond financing for construction of renewable energy facilities.

The measure is in limbo, although Senate Majority Leader Reid can call the bill back up for a vote. Aiding the GOP cause were Democratic absences, including Senate Appropriations Chairman Robert Byrd and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. Those two may be back for votes soon, however, giving Democrats a better chance on a revote as well as giving affected industries more time to lobby. Speaking earlier today at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Baucus said he thought cloture could be invoked within a week to 10 days. One lobbyist predicted Republicans would eventually back the bill or risk blame for expiration of the tax breaks, particularly vulnerable incumbents like GOP Sens. John Sununu of New Hampshire and Norm Coleman of Minnesota.

Baucus included provisions such as a 10-year extension of the Wool Trust Fund, at a $261 million cost. That program redirects duties on imported wool fabrics toward promotion of U.S.-made wool, important to the sheep industry in Baucus’ home state of Montana. There is a $3.3 billion extension of rural county payments and payments-in-lieu-of taxes for Western states largely made up of federal land, as well as a $2 million excise tax exemption for wooden arrow manufacturers. Those provisions were sought by Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., who is up for re-election and who voted for cloture. Baucus also included a $223 million provision allowing commercial fishermen impacted by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill to spread out their tax liability for any settlements they received in conjunction with the accident. That language was sought by Alaska GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Ted Stevens. Stevens is up for re-election. Both, however, voted against cloture.

Other than Smith, Republicans voting for cloture included Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Bob Corker of Tennessee. Corker said while “this bill isn’t perfect,” he backed the extension of the state sales tax deduction and renewable energy incentives, as well as closing tax loopholes for hedge fund managers. “I am pleased that an intellectually honest attempt has been made to bring a fiscally responsible tax bill to the floor of the Senate for debate. That doesn’t happen very often around here,” Corker said in a statement.

Copyright ©2008 by National Journal Group Inc. The Watergate 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 • fax 202-833-8069 NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.

Anchorage, Alaska – U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) blocked legislation today which would have included a provision that allows plaintiffs of the Exxon Valdez oil spill to average any settlement that they receive in connection with pending litigation in the federal courts over three years for federal tax purposes and allow these individuals to use these funds to make contributions to retirement accounts. Today, with the help of Stevens, the Senate failed to pass a gas relief bill and a tax relief bill. [Roll Call Vote #146, Roll Call Vote #147]

“Senator Stevens voted against Alaskan families today,” said Patti Higgins, State Chair for the Alaska Democratic Party. “Gas prices are at record highs and families are being stretched thin. These bills could have made a real difference. Unfortunately, Stevens continues to leave middle class families behind.”

Rising gas prices have made it difficult for Alaskan families to stretch their household budgets. In May 2001, the average retail price per gallon of gasoline in Alaska was $1.67. The average gas price per gallon is $4.18 as of May 19, 2008. When adjusted for inflation, this represents an increase of 107 percent. [Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation; American Automobile Association.] The Consumer-First Energy Act would have addressed some of the root causes of the record high gas prices. It would have rolled back tax breaks for oil companies while investing in renewable energy, created an Energy Independence Trust Fund to help consumers meet high energy costs, supporting clean energy technologies, and improving energy efficiency, stopped Wall Street speculation that is artificially driving up oil prices, prevented price gouging by oil producers and distributors, and allowed legal action in U.S. courts against OPEC for manipulating the price of oil.

The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act was a tax relief package that would have included the Exxon Valdez provision. The legislation also included incentives for clean energy, college tuition tax credit, deductibility of state and local sales tax for states without income taxes, and research and development tax credit. Alaska’s nearly 8,000 teachers would have saved $2 million under a provision that allowed teachers to deduct their own money spent on classroom supplies. In addition, it would have change the child tax credit to include an additional 2.9 million children.

# # #