How McCain-Palin Nearly Blew Alaska

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


A key and attention-grabbing section of Mark Halperin and John Heilemann’s new book, Game Change, focuses on the less-than-adequate vetting of Sarah Palin by John McCain’s presidential campaign. The campaign’s internal report on the Alaskan governor was thrown together in less than 40 hours, according to the book, and the report’s author, a Washington lawyer named Ted Frank, included a disclaimer: Given the time constraints, the vetters might have missed something.

What the media missed (and what’s not reported in Game Change) was Frank’s full role in the McCain-Palin campaign—a role that could have caused a big political headache for Palin had it been known at the time. Frank was part of a team of lawyers scrutinizing potential candidates for vice president. After working on the vetting report, Frank was dispatched to Alaska to help with damage control on “Troopergate”—the quasi-scandalous allegations that as governor, Palin had pressured the state public safety commissioner to fire her ex-brother-in-law, a state trooper who had allegedly made death threats against Palin’s family in the midst of a nasty divorce and custody dispute with her sister.

At the time, Frank decided that it was best that his work for the McCain-Palin campaign remain undisclosed. The reason? He had been an outspoken critic of the 1994 federal jury verdict that required oil conglomerate Exxon to pay $5 billion in punitive damages to some 30,000 Alaska residents after the Valdez ran aground and spilled 11 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound. That verdict had been extremely popular in Alaska.

For years, Exxon (now ExxonMobil) had challenged the decision in various courts, successfully knocking the award down to $2.5 billion. But despite that victory, it kept fighting the verdict, and by 2008 the case was back in the news as its appeal headed to the Supreme Court. And Frank, a prominent tort reform advocate and resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was a staunch defender of Exxon in the media. He argued that Exxon had already suffered enough after paying out more than a billion in criminal fines, several more billions in clean-up costs, and millions more in compensatory damages. In June 2008, Frank told NBC’s Anchorage affiliate that,”The question is whether it’s fundamentally fair to award billions of dollars in damages simply because it’s such a big company.”

Shortly afterward, the Supreme Court (for other reasons) reduced the $2.5 billion award to $500 million. That decision deeply upset many Alaskans—including Palin. The governor described the court’s verdict as a “huge disappointment,” unfair to the fishermen and coastal communities devastated by the spill. She said the case, which had dragged on for 14 years, “breaks our hearts” and was an example of “justice delayed as justice denied.” Frank, on the other hand, wrote in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks later that the Supreme Court should have slashed the payout even more.

Later that year, Frank was in Alaska, doing all he could to preserve Palin’s vice-presidential candidacy. He says that McCain officials asked if he wanted his role in the campaign to be public and that he decided his recent statements about the Exxon case would be “an off-message distraction given the local politics.” As Palin hit the stump, she had to contend with various problems in Alaska, and her approval rating at home—now watched throughout the nation—was slipping. If Alaskans had learned that their governor was being assisted by one of the leading foes of the Exxon Valdez award, it would not have helped her campaign. Some political observers might even wonder why the McCain campaign took the risk of putting Frank on the protect-Palin beat.

Although his cover was blown by Game Change, Frank—unlike many other McCain staffers—isn’t talking out of school to trash Palin. He says her own account of the vetting process in Going Rogue—she says McCain’s lawyers “knew stuff about me that I had long forgotten”—is accurate. And he also notes, for the record, that Todd Palin is “the handsomest man I’ve ever met.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate