Showing posts with label Alaska. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alaska. Show all posts

12 November 2010

How do you spell winner?

Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski seems likely to be re-elected in the first victory for a write-in candidate in an American federal election since 1954.

Murkowski lost the Republican nomination to Joe Miller, a challenger with backing from the Tea Party movement and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. Murkowski decided to seek re-election but Alaskan election rules, voters would have to write her name on the ballot.

Double problem.

Although Murkowski she had been appointed to the senate by her father – governor Frank Murkowski – and although, she’d already won re-election in 2004, there was still a chance voters might not be able to spell her name correctly. In a two-way fight between a red Republican and a blue Democrat, voters could vote for colour or party and still get their choice regardless of how the candidate’s name looked on the ballot. A write-in candidacy could hinge on the accuracy with which voters rendered her name.

The Republican primary and the narrow Tea Party victory also foreshadowed a tough legal challenge to a third candidate.  Take this third party ad as a typical example of the anti-Murkowski war from the campaign:

Murkowski’s campaign used a simple television spot to push the spelling of her name and get across the reminder that she was the incumbent:

She campaign also used a 17 second video that showed how to vote for a write-in candidate. Her campaign uploaded 61 videos to her youtube account, most of them fairly simple productions with high production values.  In other words, they weren’t expensive to make and told a simple story very effectively.  Most noticeably they were positive.  Even an ad that pointed to problems in her opponents finished on a positive note and let the other guy’s words tie a potential noose around his neck.

The same couldn’t be said for Joe Miller’s stuff. The music in an anti-Murkowski spot remains dark and foreboding even when discussing Miller’s positives. There are – of course – spots on Miller’s youtube account that touch on the media persecution message popular among some conservatives and a core part of the Tea Party’s messaging.

The Alaska Daily News account of one incident includes some video of a confrontation that appears to involve conventional news media and security hired by the Miller campaign. The episode would be familiar to anyone who watched the federal Conservative campaign in the 2005-2006 Canadian general election.

The write-in ballots are the last to be counted in an election that still hasn’t been declared for either of the three candidates.  By some accounts, there are enough write-in ballots and enough of those for Murkowski to give her the election. Republican candidate Miller continues to battle hard by challenging the validity of individual ballots and accusing state officials of favouritism in the counting.

- srbp -

27 May 2007

Alaska gas pipeline inches forward

From the Alaska Journal, an update on plans to develop a new gas pipeline in Alaska. The article compares the proposals from the former governor and his successor on a number of issues including local hiring and taxes and royalties.

On the latter issue, there's this observation:
One major difference between Murkowski and Palin plans is that while both approaches offer tax and royalty incentives for the producers, those proposed by Murkowski were more far-reaching and more controversial with the public and the Legislature.

Murkowski would have had a 45-year freeze on natural gas production taxes and a 30-year freeze on oil production taxes. Palin proposes a 10-year freeze on gas taxes only. The producing companies say this isn't enough, and it is a key obstacle for them in participating with a pipeline licensed under AGIA.

Murkowski would have solved a big problem producers have regarding uncertainties in state royalty administration, and particularly the state's ability under the current leases to switch between in-value and in-kind royalty-taking at six- to nine-month intervals. Murkowski's plan would have had the state take its gas in-kind for the duration of the 45-year contract.
In-kind would mean the state government would actually receive quantities of natural gas which it could then dispose of as it wanted.
One other difference between the Murkowski and Palin plans is that the former governor would have had the state invest in the pipeline and own as much as 20 percent. The idea behind this is that if the state takes its gas in-kind for a long period, it would, as a pipeline owner, be shipping its own gas and earning profits from that rather than paying another pipeline owner to ship state gas. Murkowski proposed investing about $4 billion in the project for a one-fifth share.

Palin would have no such equity ownership, but instead proposes a $500 million state grant to the pipeline license holder to subsidize early planning and engineering work. The state would get no equity or other repayment from the grant.
-srbp-