This is a state that has been shaken to the core by corruption scandals, with former state legislators and lobbyists serving jail time for buying and selling votes.

This is a federal government in which, not even a month ago, the Supreme Court further opened the floodgates of corporate spending in politics with their misguided and dangerous decision in the “Citizens United” case.

This is an America where average citizens are increasingly outraged at special interest lobbyists wining-and-dining our elected officials to their own personal gain, and that of their fat cat clients.

Now, some Alaska legislators want to change the law so that lobbyists can buy them fancy dinners– without even reporting it?

Wining and dining our elected officials should be banned outright, but to suggest that we should allow our legislators to be taken out for a fancy meal without even a nod to public disclosure is simply outrageous.  Kudos to legislators like Rep. Les Gara and Rep. Mike Doogan for calling this what it is: a bad idea.

But, to the legislators pushing to get spoiled by big money lobbyists in our state’s capitol, I say: buy your own meals.  And if you’re a citizen frustrated by big money influence in politics, I urge you to contact your own legislators and tell them the same.

Sometimes, they even get to get to write their own laws.

That’s the troubling appearance for Senator Murkowski and two big-money lobbyists who helped write and promote energy legislation on her behalf. If passed, that legislation would gut the ability of the EPA to regulate carbon emissions, rolling back a key provision the Clean Air Act.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, energy industry clients represented by one of those lobbyists, Jeffrey Holmstead, contributed about $35,000 to Senator Murkowski’s election efforts since last year.

It’s certainly reasonable for elected officials to seek out advice and input from issue experts when crafting legislation. That sort of thing happens all the time, with non-profits, academics, and administration officials alike. But when corporations make big campaign contributions, and then their lobbyists are handed the pen to write legislation that could benefit the corporation’s short term bottom line, it just doesn’t look right.

To get rid of the appearance of these pay-to-play politics, Senator Murkowski could do two things: She could abandon her amendment that would prevent a step forward on climate change. Or she could give back the thirty five grand, along with any other corporate contributions tied to lobbyists seeking to influence crucial energy policy decisions.

In an ideal world, she would do both.