The Law that Sarah Palin Did Not Violate


The Alaska Statute known as AS 39.52.180 provides as follows:

AS 39.52.180. Restrictions On Employment After Leaving State Service.

(a) A public officer who leaves state service may not, for two years after leaving state service, represent, advise, or assist a person for compensation regarding a matter that was under consideration by the administrative unit served by that public officer, and in which the officer participated personally and substantially through the exercise of official action. For the purposes of this subsection, “matter” includes a case, proceeding, application, contract, determination, proposal or CONSIDERATION OF A LEGISLATIVE BILL, a resolution, a constitutional amendment, OR OTHER LEGISLATIVE MEASURES, or proposal, consideration, or adoption of an administrative regulations.

 

It is undisputed that Palin was the Executive Producer of the TLC Show, Sarah Palin’s Alaska.  It was filmed in the summer after Palin’s resignation, which was clearly less than two years after leaving state “service.” She was paid around $250,000.00 per episode. During her short term as Governor it was Sarah Palin who approved the legislation that allowed a tax credit to be given to any company filming in Alaska, and using Alaska residents.  Jean Worldwide received a 1.2 Million Dollar Tax Credit as a result of the legislation that was under consideration by Sarah Palin, and signed into law during her half term as Governor. The Alaska Attorney General has summarily dismissed this complaint saying that “…we do not interpret…the definition of “matter” to preclude all activity for two years involving an enacted law. Once a bill is enacted, consideration of the legislation, the “matter” is concluded.

 

Even people without a law degree can understand this statute and appreciate that it was enacted to minimize the appearance of impropriety. For the Alaska AG to say that this legislation signed into law by Palin was not a “legislative measure” or that she did not consider this “legislative bill” is ludicrous. Moreover there is no time period that limits the actions of the Governor during their term. The only relevant time period is the two years following the end of her term, or in this case her resignation. Thus, Palin was prohibited by statute from accepting any financial remuneration that was derived from the passage of any law during her term as Governor. She could make the reality show, but TLC should not have received a tax credit for it.

 

Here is the complete AP story if you are interested in reading what is reported. Please go to the citations herein and decide for yourself if you think the Alaska Attorney General’s opinion made any sense, or if “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” was chosen as the name of the series because Palin owns government officials in Alaska.

25 thoughts on “The Law that Sarah Palin Did Not Violate

Add yours

  1. Interesting that all the sites I found it in only included the first two paragraphs & said something about a “frivolous lawsuit.”. Guess those were all bot newsies as they left out some of the most pertinent information. Most annoying!!

    Like

    1. Carolyn,
      Yes they left out page two which gives insight into how very hard the AG had to try to find a reason for dismissing the complaint. No doubt he dismissed the complaint. No doubt his reasoning makes no sense.

      Like

  2. Laws in Alaska only apply to certain people and the job of the A.G. is to use creative interpretation of the laws to make sure they are severely applied to some and not applied to others. Our unsophisticated state legislators don’t catch on when unethical right wing state senators assisted by lobbyists write laws that can be easily manipulated. Of course the D.O.L. should be assisting with this, but how could they? That means the leadership at the Department of Law has to be rather sociopathic, partisan, and must by all means be a person who is subject to illogical thinking. That is why there is very little justice in this state.

    Like

  3. Laws!?! “I’ll do what I want until a court tells me not to” ( and I know no court in A-lass-ka will do that so…there!)
    So…I can use SOA resources to threaten blogs I don’t like. You Betcha! Just like I can use State resources to film my Reality show and my hairdressers too 🙂
    Because I’m the Queen PooBah Terrorist Teabaggin’ Sarah Palin, You betcha!

    Like

  4. Can the Alaska AG be sued or brought up on charges for not protecting the interest of Alaska’s citizens?

    At least get a timeout with no pay.

    Like

  5. At the Sea of Pea they are still convinced that $arah actually has to pay to defend herself in an ethics investigation. Since 2008, she has not claimed a red cent on her personal Alaska or federal tax returns. I checked. Litigation defense is an allowable deduction in both Alaska and federal tax law.

    But claiming that she STILL is spending money to defend herself is red meat to her deluded followers. The rest of America is STILL waiting for an accounting from her legal defense fund – the one that WAS a violation of Alaska ethics law, until all of the money was returned and a new defense fund was formed.

    Selective memory – one of the many ways you can spot a conservative.

    Like

    1. just realized my first comment might not have come out right. SHOULD have said

      so WHY was shay’s NOT YET BEEN RETURNED DIGITAL “little black book” the first thing to pop into thought as i finished reading this?

      Like

  6. There is no oversight and no accountability. They do whatever they want to do.

    It’s the Wild West and that’s why many Alaskans lean towards secession. Just ask Todd.

    Like

  7. A little research would probably show that the person who made this decision was appointed by her. That’s just how they roll in Alaska.

    Like

    1. WakeUpAmerica,
      The AG who made the decision was appointed by Sean Parnell who came to office when Sarah Resigned. Are we surprised? No! What surprises me is that he wasn’t embarrassed to write this opinion. Malia

      Like

      1. I wonder if he is a member of the same church/religion? They don’t seem to be embarrassed by their actions if they are helping one of “their own.” He probably was afraid of “the wrath of Sarah Palin” or he supports her. It’s really disturbing.

        Like

  8. Amazing, it’s times like these when being not only disgusted with the legal system sets me aflame, but knowing the law falls to the wayside for some, while burying others in a lifetime of grief.
    These documents could be read to a 5th grade classroom and not be ignored as a blatant flat out violation.
    Thank you Malia for your passion in what is right, vs what others can get away with… We’ll continue the fight because knowing of these crimes of lies is what makes man’s walls weak and un-inhabitable.

    Like

    1. Tyroanee,
      I agree, it seems so obvious to me that there was a violation, that a 5th grade group of kids could read the statute, consider the undisputed facts, and reach the conclusion that a violation had occurred. Even if the AG didn’t agree with the final conclusion, it seems that at a minimum there should have been an investigation instead of an outright dismissal. The fact that the dismissal came right on the heals of the statute of limitations passing smells to me. If they had the complaint in their office for two months, and they didn’t even need to conduct an investigation, it would seem to me that they could have issued the dismissal within a week. Malia

      Like

      1. I agree with you, Malia. Why wasn’t the date of your letter taken into consideration and not the date of the dismissal? They are crooks and cheaters.

        On another note, an anti SP documentary will be opened at the Toronto International Film Festival on Sept. 8th according to the Alaska Dispatch. It is called, “Sarah Palin, You Betcha!”.The article is in todays online newspaper.

        Like

      2. I’ve just dipped my toes into the C4P, and according to one commenter you should be Tared and Feathered for your frivolous pursuits onto Ms. Palin… Gosh darn-it those dang tea par-tiers are always coming up with the fun games at the end of the world party eh?

        Like

  9. Malia –
    On another note – wanted you to check out an item on Politico by Burgess Everett entitled, “Fox analyst pulls punches on Palin”. As if we didn’t already know!!

    Like

  10. Appeal the decision and raise a huge fuss about it. Contact the newpapers, the AP and every other media outlet. Excoriate them in public, whether you prevail or not.

    Like

  11. AG Sullivan find AGAINST Palin? What are you delusional? Of course he’s not going to do that – he owes too much to Palin/Parnell and they all got each other’s Dominionist back’s. This state has been packed with slimy, ride the edge of ethics, power-playing, greedy SOB’s for the last 40 years. Murkowski et al has put their people in place, along with Young and Stevens, and Palin had a field day appointing all her cronies and sycophants, which Parnell kept in place.

    The only way ANYTHING will change in this state is if we get a nice big visual federal lawsuit against these members of the CBC (that so many of us had hoped was happening with the Steven’s case), which is still in high gear, they just changed the ball caps to underwear, that ends up with jail time – significant jail time.

    Like

  12. I’m afraid, Malia, that I reluctantly have to agree with the AG on this one. I am not a lawyer, first of all, but my reading of the statute is that a former employee cannot work for/with someone or an organization on any matter still under consideration by the legislature. Settled law is a different thing, and that’s what he hung his hat on. Now, appearance of impropriety is another thing entirely and that exists in spades, but, based on the way the law is worded today, it breaks my heart to have to agree with the decision. There are so many other things which $P has committed, I suggest we all concentrate on them and move on. We all know that babygate has yet to break, but it will soon and then we all can have a party.

    Like

    1. physicsmom,
      I’m not trying to pick a fight but here is the statute:(a) A public officer who leaves state service may not, for two years after leaving state service, represent, advise, or assist a person for compensation regarding a matter that was under consideration by the administrative unit served by that public officer, and in which the officer participated personally and substantially through the exercise of official action. For the purposes of this subsection, “matter” includes a case, proceeding, application, contract, determination, proposal or CONSIDERATION OF A LEGISLATIVE BILL, a resolution, a constitutional amendment, OR OTHER LEGISLATIVE MEASURES, or proposal, consideration, or adoption of an administrative regulations.
      It was within two years of her resignation, the law she signed while governor was the basis of the tax credit that she and Jean Worldwide took advantage of, she received compensation related to the law that was passed during the time she was Governor. I don’t understand where you feel this case fails to comply with the law. I would appreciate it if you could help me understand what matter you think was still under consideration? The law re the tax credit was signed by Palin during her term, and if was “still under consideration” then Jean World wide would not have been able to take advantage of the law?

      Like

    1. physicsmom,
      I believe that the complaint was valid, and the explanation of the Attorney General is flat out wrong. Because he summarily dismissed the complaint, that means there was no contested fact question. He determined that as a matter of law, assuming everything I said was true the statute still didn’t apply. He was wrong. I may have no recourse or appeal, but I’m not done establishing that he was wrong. Malia

      Like

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑