10/27/2006

Allen's leadership pursuit trumps district's interests

The races in two Northern Michigan state Senate districts come down to a simple question — is the person elected to represent the district working for me or someone else? Whose interests come first?

In the 35th Senate District, which includes Leelanau, Benzie, Manistee Kalkaska and Wexford counties, the answer is clear. Incumbent Republican MICHELLE MCMANUS has established a solid track record of putting district needs first and going all-out to protect them and has earned re-election. She is facing a challenge from Democrat Antoinette Schippers of Cadillac, a longtime school teacher and activist.

McManus is widely credited for her work to protect northern Michigan wineries when it appeared that limits on interstate and direct sales could cripple the industry.

She also fought long and hard to keep open a private prison for youthful offenders in Lake County to protect hundreds of jobs. And she led the way on legislation to benefit state land conservancies by eliminating the so-called "pop-up" tax on property that has been put into a development easement.

Most lately, McManus co-sponsored legislation passed by the House to require greater disclosure of campaign finances; she intends to draft legislation that would require full public disclosure of state political funds known as 527 accounts.

McManus said she keeps no campaign or other funds not open to public scrutiny.

In fact, state Sen. Jason Allen's failure to fully disclose the source of thousands of dollars in contributions has become the central issue in the 37th Senate District race.

As a part of his ongoing bid to be named Senate majority leader, Allen has created two so-called "leadership" funds from which he can make donations to other senate campaigns.

He has created three other accounts, however, that are not subject to public disclosure laws and can accept corporate and lobbyist donations that could not legally be accepted by regular campaign accounts. Two of the accounts are used to make charitable donations, the third to pay for dinners, trips, gifts and other expenses.

Allen admits contributions to one of those accounts came from tobacco, casino and landfill interests.

In 2004, as chairman of a Commerce and Labor Committee, Allen refused to hold a vote on a bill to ban smoking in Michigan restaurants. Within a month of Record-Eagle stories about the bill, Allen accepted two $1,000 donations from Brown and Williamson Tobacco Co. to his private account.

The Michigan Restaurant Association, which also opposed the bill, gave $2,500 to Allen's private account just 10 days before a hearing on the bill.

Since that time one of Allen's "leadership" funds took in $40,000 from a "housewife" who turned out to be married to a major roads contractor, and Allen solicited $10,000 from Tony Soave, a Detroit-area businessman who has been linked to organized crime.

Earlier this year Allen intervened in Traverse City's parking deck debate, on behalf of a firm whose CEO had given Allen's leadereship fund two $10,000 donations.

No one will be shocked that money and politics go together like peanut butter and jelly. What voters should worry about is the amount of money involved, the amounts given in secret and the seeming links between contributions and results.

Some argue that Allen's quest to be majority leader could pay off for northern Michigan in terms of influence and clout if he is successful.

Perhaps. But voters must also realize that those who donate significant amounts to individual politicians expect access and expect to be heard on key issues. So who comes first? Who wins if district — or state taxpayer — interests are at odds with those of a powerful lobby or donor?

Our political system, from the statehouse to Congress, is drowning in cash and influence and we're paying the price. The system is skewed toward those who can afford to play the game; those who can't, suffer.

Allen's opponent, Democrat Sharon Unger of Bellaire, lacks any prior experience in elective office.