Palin On Darfur

“America is in a position to help. What I’ve done in my position to help, as the governor of a state that’s pretty rich in natural resources, we have a $40 billion investment fund, a savings fund called the Alaska Permanent Fund. When I and others in the legislature found out we had some millions of dollars in Sudan, we called for divestment through legislation of those dollars to make sure we weren’t doing anything that would be seen as condoning the activities there in Darfur. That legislation hasn’t passed yet but it needs to because all of us, as individuals, and as humanitarians and as elected officials should do all we can to end those atrocities in that region of the world.”

That’s what Sarah Palin said in the debate tonight. And she’s right when she says “that legislation hasn’t passed yet.” But that’s about where the honest part of this answer ends. Here’s what really happened.

HB 287 was introduced by Rep. Les Gara (Democrat) and Rep. Bob Lynn (Republican) during the most recent session of the Alaska State Legislature. When the bill came up for a hearing in the House State Affairs Committee in February, two members of the Palin administration delivered testimony that effectively torpedoed the bill. Mike Burns, Executive Director of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, argued against the bill, which would have divested Permanent Fund money from six companies that had been identified as doing business with the Sudanese government (an entity that, as informed members of the electorate you are almost certainly aware, is actively carrying out genocide in Darfur), based more or less on three points:

1. He didn’t believe in social investing.
2. The Permanent Fund’s investments have never been based on social issues.
3. It would be too administratively difficult to divest the funds in question.

Mr. Burns testified:

In 30 years, the Alaska Permanent Fund has only been invested for the financial benefit of the people of Alaska and never to enact a social or political agenda. Placing a social investment directive on the fund would be a significant change to our core mission. We believe that the prudent course of action is to make investment decisions on strictly economic grounds, and we do not believe that investment decisions made for social or political reasons are in the best interest of the permanent fund.

After the question of prudence is the question of efficacy. We are discouraged at the prospect of placing a socially motivated directive on the permanent fund - a directive that will have some costs - when we have not seen definitive proof that these divestment efforts are effective.

Burns was followed by Brian Andrews, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Revenue, who “prefaced his own testimony by saying he agree[d] with Mr. Burns’ testimony,” according to the record.

“The legislation is well-intended,” Andrews said, “and the desire to make a difference is noble, but mixing moral and political agendas at the expense of our citizens' financial security is not a good combination.”

Essentially, they said, while divesting those funds might be the socially conscious thing to do, it would hurt the Permanent Fund’s bottom line.

Prior to Andrews and Burns’s testimony, the bill appeared to have the votes necessary to move out of committee; however, after they spoke, that was no longer the case. Without the blessing of the Palin administration, the bill died in committee. When it came down to it, three members of the House State Affairs Committee agreed that money was more important than divesting from companies that were enabling genocide.

Regardless of how you or I may feel about HB 287, the fact remains that Governor Sarah Palin did not “call for divestment,” and she did not “help” the people of Darfur as she said she tried to. Perhaps she feels this legislation “needs to” pass, but her actions speak far louder than tonight’s words. She remained silent while members of her administration set out to make sure HB 287, that “humanitarian” legislation, did not pass. How she thinks that will end any atrocities, I’m not sure; but I’d be very interested to hear her explanation.

*****

UPDATE: Apparently the governor is now supportive of divestment. It took her sixteen months to get on board with it, though; she received a letter about it just days after her election in 2006. Palin did, eventually, support the bill, but not until it was far too late in the session to do anything about it, and not until after the bill’s sponsors advised her office they planned to take their fight to the press. So, technically, the governor was telling the truth; when she heard about the issue, she did something about it. It’s just that what she did was wait almost a year and a half and then, after allowing members of her administration to kill the bill, she jumped on the bandwagon too late in the game to make a difference.