District 29 Senate Race

Communication from ARP District 29

District 29

MatSu Valley & Valdez

Carol Carman, Chair

[email protected]

907-746-8670 (no text)

District 29 Facebook

Region 2 Council Facebook

Hello District 29!

This is the third in a series that compares Senator Shower with Candidate Massie.

You Will Know Them by Their Fruit

More details about the Binding Caucus and a Bi-Partisan Coalition are in sections below.

Senator Shower

Binding Caucus

Senator Shower is 100% opposed and will not join one. He is a leading voice to make it illegal. His refusal was key to a non-binding caucus formed this past year in the senate. It is no coincidence you received the largest PFD in Alaska's history when there was no binding caucus to force legislators to vote against it!

Bi-Partisan Coalition

Senator Shower will never join a muskrat bi-partisan coalition that gives democrats / moderates full control of the senate.

Senator Shower's re-election is key to the entire makeup of the senate. If he loses this election, it is certain that a bi-partisan muskrat coalition will form, who will drive up the budget and continue the PFD drama.

Candidate Massie

Binding Caucus

Massie will take a "collaborative" approach and likely would join a binding caucus and surrender his vote to leadership instead of his constituents (see section below). To date he refuses to answer the direct question with a yes or no.

Bi-Partisan Coalition

Massie initially refused to answer a direct question about joining a bi-partisan coalition, breaking eye contact and looking away from me. But, when pressed again he told me he could not guarantee that he would not join a bi-partisan coalition.

His body language confirmed a bi-partisan plan between moderates and democrats is afoot, and he is communicating with them about joining it.

We cannot afford to replace our conservative senator with a moderate.

The Binding Caucus

The Binding Caucus is used in the majority caucus to obligate legislators to always vote for items the leader of the body endorses rather than what legislators' constituents want.

Typically binding issues include the budget and whatever other items the leader of that body dictates. Often Binding Caucuses discuss their goals at the beginning of the session, and agreements are reached. If the leader deviates from their stated goals, legislators may object and refuse to vote for deviations from original agreements earlier in the session. Sometimes the leader of a body will suddenly decide to make a vote on a particular issue binding, to the objection of some members.

There was an uproar in the senate early in 2020, and the Senate President punished three senators, including Senator Shower, for not voting as senate leadership demanded. He lost committee memberships, committee chairmanships, and staff. This is typical punishment by leadership on legislators who vote as they believe best for the people they represent as opposed to what a small group of politicians dictate.

Consider that it is a felony in Alaska statutes to require someone to vote for something they have a right to vote against, or to vote against something they have a right to vote for.

Another facet to ponder is that coercion falls under this realm, and leadership using a binding caucus uses coercion to force reticent legislators to vote as directed - or else. It's the "or else" which causes the problem, because it's a coercive use of power to get ones way. There is no other way to describe it. Coercion is also a crime in Alaska's statutes. Yet Alaska's legislature has been operating this way for decades - can you see the problem? Can you understand how a legislator has "top cover" to vote for a bigger budget or against the PFD under a binding caucus?

They "had to" vote that way, or lose the power that comes with being in a majority, the excuse always being if they didn't vote as directed they'd lose the ability to effectively represent their district. That is true - but only because of the inherent unethical nature of a binding caucus. If enough legislators refuse to join in the game - the binding caucus dies the death it deserves.

A Bi-Partisan Coalition

A Bi-Partisan Coalition is when the majority in a body of the legislature is formed by members of multiple parties (including both democrats and republicans). We have had six years of a bi-partisan coalition (sometimes called a muskrat coalition) in the House, and have seen the problems this has caused with larger budgets, smaller PFDs, and assorted other issues and accompanying drama.

Being in the minority, as has been the case for most republicans in the house for 6 years, means no committee chairmanships, minority members on committees (thus being outvoted), and difficulty getting committees to hear your legislation. Thus, it's very difficult to pass anything through committees to the floor for a vote.

A bi-partisan coalition that has strong conservative republican control may not be a bad thing if it has democrats who support a conservative agenda. I can think of at least one blue-dog democrat in the senate who is very conservative on many issues.

There was an effort to form a muskrat bi-partisan majority last year, but moderate republicans changed their minds at the last minute. Again this year there is talk of moderate republicans planning to join with democrats to form a bi-partisan muskrat coalition in the senate, leaving conservative senators outside of the majority caucus. Their plan depends on who is elected to the senate this November.

From 2007-2012 there was a bi-partisan muskrat coalition in the senate where democrats and moderates were in control. The result was an astronomical budget as never seen in our state prior to that time, with many new programs added that the legislature doesn't have the appetite to trim even today. The chart below shows what happened. The lighter shaded red and blue vertical bars show the bi-partisan senate, and the red line shows the budget. Prior to 2006 the budget was historically flat.