Palin PING!
Anyone on or off the Palin ping, write me.
Posted on 06/29/2009 1:07:47 PM PDT by DB9
Monday, June 29, 2009 Is Jay Ramras Invested in AGIA’s Failure? UPDATE: Audio from the Bob & Mark Show with Comments from Begich By R. A. Mansour
Rena Delbridge’s article last week in the Fairbanks News-Miner contained this interesting quote from Rep. Jay Ramras (RINO-Fairbanks, who, by the way, once made a sexist “joke” about Gov. Palin):
Regardless of when the state starts talking with producers, Rep. Jay Ramras, R-Fairbanks, said Gov. Sarah Palin has created a Gordian knot that places her exactly where former Gov. Frank Murkowski was — negotiating tax deals with oil companies.
Worse, he said, is the current alignment. Exxon was the least flexible in negotiating a low tax and is now within the administration through its partnership with TransCanada, Ramras said. Meanwhile the most “elastic” producers, BP and ConocoPhillips, are boxed out.
“We seem to have wandered a million miles away from the open and transparent Governor Palin ran under,” Ramras said.
He advocates a mediator who can gather the producers and the state in one room to hammer out terms. [emphasis added].
Oh, where to begin...
First, you will note that Ramras, who purports to be a Republican, is demanding that the government intervene in a private sector deal. Apparently, in Ramras’ world, allowing the private sector to do what it does best is not “open and transparent.” Is he now demanding that the government invade the board rooms of private corporations?
Second, you’ll notice the absurdity of his statement that “negotiating tax deals with oil companies” somehow means that the state is backtracking. No, negotiating was always part of the timeline. It’s part of the process. It’s as if he’s saying, “our travel plans are totally in limbo because we need to pack our bags.” Packing your bags is part of traveling. Negotiating fiscal certainty on taxes with producers is part of building a pipeline.
Finally, I would like to draw your attention to Ramras’ praise of BP and ConocoPhillips’ rival pipeline project, Denali. The AGIA license, you will recall, is held by TransCanada, which has recently partnered with Exxon Mobil to construct the large-diameter natural gas pipeline to the Lower 48. As Delbridge noted in her article:
The other two major producers, BP and ConocoPhillips, are pursuing a line called Denali — The Alaska Gas Pipeline.
Though Ramras voted in favor of AGIA, he seems keen on praising the rival pipeline. Why would he be undermining AGIA? Is it an honest difference of opinion?
Take a look at page 10 of Ramras’ financial disclosure form.
Ramras purchased 3,000 shares of BP on 8/18/08. They were reported to be worth $172,388.95.
Take a look at Ramras’ campaign donations. He got $1000 each from BP and ConcocoPhillips (and more from individuals associated with both companies -- see the update below).
During the last legislative session, Ramras introduced legislation that was aimed at undermining AGIA. If AGIA tanks, then BP and ConocoPhillips’ Denali pipeline project is the obvious winner for a future natural gas pipeline to the Lower 48.
His legislation appears to be a clear conflict of interest. He has a lot of money in BP. If BP and ConocoPhillips’ Denali pipeline beats the TransCanada Exxon pipeline, Ramras stands to make a lot more money.
BP and ConocoPhillips announced their rival Denali pipeline on April 8, 2008. Though Ramras voted for the AGIA legislation in May 2007, he voted against awarding the AGIA license to TransCanada on July 22, 2008. On August 18, 2008, Ramras purchased his BP stock. I wonder why?
Why isn’t anyone else interested in this? The self-described “ethics crusaders” in Alaska seem more interested in Sarah Palin’s jacket. A natural gas pipeline is the future of Alaska. Sarah Palin’s jacket is nothing.
According to the Legislative Ethics Act [AS 24.60.030 (g)]:
Unless required by the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature, a legislator may not vote on a question if the legislator has an equity or ownership interest in a business, investment, real property, lease, or other enterprise if the interest is substantial and the effect on that interest of the action to be voted on is greater than the effect on a substantial class of persons to which the legislator belongs as a member of a profession, occupation, industry, or region. [emphasis added]
AS 24.60.990 (b) states:
A person has a substantial interest in legislative, administrative, or political action if the person... will be directly and substantially affected financially by a legislative, administrative, or political action in a way that is greater than the effect on a substantial class of persons to which the person belongs as a member of a profession, occupation, industry, or region; [emphasis added]
By owning such a large value of BP stock, Ramras’ legislative action is arguably “greater” for him personally than any other “class of persons” (other than fellow shareholders) to which he belongs, such as members of a profession, occupation, industry or region. In other words, he can draft legislation which will benefit his home town of Fairbanks as a whole and in the process benefit his own restaurant business. And he can sponsor legislation that would benefit all hotel owners, himself included. However, with his considerable ownership of BP stock, it’s questionable whether he can vote on any oil and gas issue that could impact BP.
AS 24.60.990 (9) defines “legislative action” as:
...conduct relating to the development, drafting, consideration, sponsorship, enactment or defeat, support or opposition to or of a law, amendment, resolution, report, nomination, or other matter affected by legislative action or inaction; [emphasis added]
The introduction of a bill is therefore “legislative action” as defined in the Ethics Act. And, under the Act, the appearance of impropriety or a “conflict of interest” is an ethics issue.
AS 24.60.010 states:
The legislature finds that... a fair and open government requires that legislators and legislative employees conduct the public's business in a manner that preserves the integrity of the legislative process and avoids conflicts of interest or even appearances of conflicts of interest...[emphasis added]
All of this was readily available in the public record. We report, you decide.
UPDATE by RAM: Ramras’ other campaign contributors are:
Paul Laird, former BP spokesperson, current head of the Alliance of all oil and gas producers and their support
James Udelhoven, owner of a gas services company whose biggest clients are ConocoPhilips and BP
Richard Solie, a lobbyist for the Denali pipeline
James Bowles, President of ConocoPhilips
There is an obvious connection to BP or ConocoPhilips in all but one of the donations he received from the oil and gas industry. (The only other donation in this category was from Flint Hills Resources).
Coincidence? You decide.
Start filing ethics complaints...what’s good for the goose...and all that.
I want to know why the Anchorage Daily News isn’t pursuing this bombshell story.
Why not ADN, why not?
Hay Ramras, there is such a thing as karma.
Someday when you least expect it, a Celtic Diva is going to jump you and sit on your face.
‘Cause Palin is a republican.
Would ANYBODY in ABCNNBCBS cover ANY demoncrat scandal?
ABCNBCCBSNNYTLAT... ARE the Democrat Party. The only 'covering' they're going to do for a fellow Democrat's crimes and misdemeanors are to cover them up...
Palin PING!
Anyone on or off the Palin ping, write me.
-- In May, '07 Rep. Ramras votes FOR AGIA legislation
-- In July, '08 he votes AGAINST TransCanada getting the construction contract.
-- In August '08, he buys $173,000 in BP stock. BP/Conoco is competing with their Denali pipeline project.
-- He gets campaign contributions from BP and Conoco Phillips.
-- Since the big stock purchase, he constantly trashes Palin and AGIA.
If Sarah Palin did that, she would be gleefully impeached.
Where is the Alaska press on this? Oh wait, never mind....
Not true. Palin is going have to negotiate, with Exxon, a tax freeze, royalties, and, as some people say, Point Thompson.
And whatever deal she negotiates with Exxon, she will have to extend the same deal to CP and BP.
If and when Palin does this, as Ranras points out, she would be headed in the direction of Murkowski's deal. Which she campaigned against.
Ping...a citizen reporter doing the work the media won’t.
Sarah’s got the bully pulpit. I like to think she’s just waiting for the perfect moment to lower the boom on this guy.
If Governor Palin did anything close to what Jay “Pee-Wee” Ramras did, she would be impeached in a New York minute. Imagine, for example, if she bought $172,388.95 worth of TransCanada stock, then worked to promote TransCanada. This is exactly what Jay Ramras did. He buys $172,388.95 worth of BP stock, then endeavors to trash AGIA and promote BP. You don’t think that’s a problem?
That is not relevant because any profit that BP makes off of either of the natural gas pipeline is decades down the road.
Do you deny that if Governor Palin did this, that she would be impeached?
Strange that a politician investing in a stock and then using his power to promote that stock Clinton did something to democrat minds, everything has been relative morality for democrats since his insane whore house presidency.
Got shamed into it, I guess. Must be creating a stir up there.
Strange that a politician investing in a stock and then using his power to promote that stock means nothing to you.
Clinton did something to democrat minds, everything has been relative morality for democrats since his insane whore house presidency.
Not even remotley close.
Murkowski took bribes and campaign contributions in exchange for ramming through an absurd tax rate.
You are FOS
Great news!
Isn't it strange the huge magnifying glass over Palins life finding nothing, and simple citizen inquiry's finding major ethics issues in her detractors. It is like there are two classes of citizens now in America. Law does not seem to apply to Politicians or Democrats.
A democrat President can be a rapist or an illegal alien Marxist, but a righteous Conservative is to be persecuted for every slight, imagined or not.
Ben Ficklin is a brain-dead troll just ignore him
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.