Congress immediately extinguished all Alaska Native rights to traditional land [conf. section 4], it did not, in return, immediately pay Alaska Natives.
To add to the with-holding of funds,
Section 6(b): None of the funds paid or distributed pursuant to this section to any of the Regional and Village Corporations established pursuant to this Act shall be expended, donated, or otherwise used for the purpose of carrying on propaganda, or intervening in (including the publishing and distribution of statements) any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office. Any person who willfully violates the foregoing provision shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than twelve months, or both.
They hand cuffed the money given to the Natives. That money could not be spent to gain the help of politicians or other persons regarding Native Corporations. The fact that section 6(b) was built into ANCSA is low. I take that back, if you are on the side of a government that wants to keep Alaska Natives in a situation where it would be nearly impossible to influence their future and to gain the support of those in power such as policy makers, than section 6(b) is great.
I know it is a fact, and is now a part of history, the thing that burns me is that if given the opportunity to do it again, the government would follow the same route.
According to section 10(a) : . . . any civil action to contest the authority of the United States to legislate on the subject matter or the legality of this Act shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within one year of enactment of the Act . . .
That the Natives only had one year after enacted to dispute any of the Act was not fair. The Natives were so involved with adhering to what needed to be set up so they can function as a Corporation, they did not have time to fully go through the act with a fine tooth comb and pull out all the bugs.
To put the greed of those involved with the pipeline ahead of the need for informed consent of the Alaskan Natives is sad. With the rushed implementation of ANCSA, and with all the embedded wording, not to mention the trauma and racial discrimination that Natives have gone through, it is no wonder that there is such a need for help in Native populated areas.
In regards to section 6(b) there is no denying that limitations were placed on the corporations but are these multi-million dollar major players suffering today? I'm not speaking of the native population in general. I am talking about these huge corporations that continually break off into subsidiaries to keep their monopoly(8A Status) in most government contracts in Alaska.
ReplyDeleteAnd don't forget this was embraced by the Native community through AFN at the time. It was heralded, at least then, as a progressive act which gave Native groups and individuals an opportunity to pursue economic success. While there was certainly pressure on all sides to get it done and without the pressure to access the oil the Lands issue would still be with us today, it was embraced by all. I am curious as to why the language was put in. It does seem odd and, given the most recent overturning of campaign finance reform by the US Supreme Court, it does give these often wealthy corporations less of a democratic voice. Good find.
ReplyDeleteyou know...it might have just been a restriction on the original settlement money. that is not really such a bad thing. I don't imagine the groups even wanted to spend the money for political donations anyway. they wanted to make them viable and profitable for future generations. I doubt if any of that applies to today....but I supposed I don't know for sure.
ReplyDeleteIt did only apply to the original $962.5 million; however, it is when the corporations were just getting started that they could really have benefited from the ability to us their money to assist in getting things going.
ReplyDeleteSection 6(b)does not apply to any monies earned by the corporations. So,if any of the corporations have the financial ability, and need/want to influence those in power, they now can.
As members of the United States recieving continual supply of federal money I think taxes are in order. I think Kerri is right on when she mentions government contracts. Doyon has completely cornered the market on security contracts and is not accountable for breaches in contract or actual security breaches. That being the case what good is security other than a smiling face?
ReplyDeletePart 6(b) of the ANCSA law is law everywhere else as well. I work for an agency that receives Federal money. I can't lobby on the behalf of my company (even though my business helps the poorest of the poor) while on work hours or using any work resources (computers, phones etc). We can educate but we can't lobby. If I want to lobby for something it has to be on my own time.
ReplyDeleteThe short version of why this is has to do with where the money came from in the first place-taxes. All Federal money originally came from the tax payers. Therefore you can't use taxpayer money to support a candidate or bill.
I don't think they were trying to tie anybodies hands, just trying to maintain equitibility.
Tamara's right. Paul Ongtooguk's comments on Section 6(b) explain the issue far more clearly than I can:
ReplyDelete"This provision is contained in virtually every piece of federal legislation appropriating public money, the idea being that it would be questionable for public money to be used to promote special interest political purposes. The language of this section does not prevent money resulting from profits generated by ANCSA from being used for political purposes. State and local politicians were concerned that Alaskan Natives were receiving this large cash settlement and would use the money to aid those politicians who had promoted the land settlement and defeat those who had opposed it. Therefore, Section 6 (b) prevented the possibility of Alaskan Natives using ANCSA money as economic clout to influence state politics."
All of the points are very good. To me this is another example of the restricted nature of Federal Government allocated funds. It is almost as though the Feds were saying, I'm giving you this money but you cannot use it to influence or fund a political affiliate. Another brilliant move by the political pundits with aspirations of maintaining their seat in the political elite of the State of Alaska.
ReplyDeleteHi Mary Jane,
ReplyDeleteOn the surface, I agree with you that giving Alaska Natives one year to dispute any of the problems with the bill seems shady.
But you have to give Alaska Natives credit.
From Chapter 14 of the readings:
"But the decade of the 1960's was to be marked by the emergence of new threats to Native land rights. In response, Natives formed local and regional organizations to preserve their rights and their lands."
"AFN: it was independent, increasingly strong, and growing in its ability to influence the processes of government."
These characterizations of Alaska Natives are from the drunken, dispirited people that Napoleon talked of.
Also, these organizations had plenty of lawyers to go through the material before approving it.
Plus the AFN did respond with corrects to the material. So even though a year does not seem like enough time, it's helpful to remember that everyone wanted to settle the entire issue in a timely matter.
When it comes to the Federal Government not being sued over the matter resembles a formal contract. So that when you essentially sign something, you agree to accept those terms of the contract. AFN ultimately accepted those terms, meaning they agree with the terms.
At first it did seem like the government was being tight about giving the Alaska Natives the money they deserved. But, after looking into it a bit more, I don't think that was the intention. The AFN signed the contract with the terms. The Alaska Natives also seemed to do pretty well with it. For the most part this was pretty revolutionary and successful.
ReplyDelete