In the corporate world, when a board riddles a company with debt to scuttle a vote for ownership, we say a poison pill has been forced on the stakeholders.

On April 2, members of the U.S. Senate force-fed a political poison pill to the American public. The Senate voted 52-48 to strike Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil development revenues from the fiscal year 2004 Budget Resolution.

Looking no deeper than the surface, media outlets crowed about the Senate’s resolve to “protect” a “pristine” wildlife refuge. The vote, they argued, offered powerful evidence that oil development in the refuge was politically unpalatable and therefore a losing issue for the Bush administration.

What the news outlets failed to acknowledge is that Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., tainted the vote with a poison pill. He larded the measure with funding for land acquisitions – the type of acquisitions that shrink the tax bases of counties and stifle natural-resource production in rural areas. So we’ll never know whether senators opposed the ANWR vote based on the merits of oil drilling or based on the merits of ladling out pork for government-sanctioned land grabs.

Alexander, wearing the mantle of a moderate, knew he was placing many of his colleagues in an impossible position. He admitted to his manipulation of the outcome with the following statement:

“I am disappointed the Senate did not approve drilling in Alaska. We missed an opportunity to be less dependent on Middle Eastern oil and create millions of new dollars for neighborhood parks, walking trails and greenways. My proposal would’ve put the first $250 million of revenues from drilling in Alaska into the state side of the land and water conservation fund.”

We suspect Alexander was crying crocodile tears when he issued this statement. He should have known that conservation funding had no place in the vote. Political gamesmanship does a disservice to the voters. All we want is an honest vote on the merits of ANWR development.

Oregon’s Republican senator, Gordon Smith, has thrown up the white flag of surrender on the issue of ANWR. We can understand why. Politics in Oregon hinge on urban votes. Urban voters have been deceived into believing that oil development in ANWR would devastate a “pristine” wildlife refuge. Therefore, Smith must tow the line and oppose drilling. With a straightforward debate, free of lies and distortions, however, a vote for drilling would be a no-brainer.

Here are the facts:

Development of Alaskan oil reserves has been deemed safe to the environment by none other than the highest lawmaking body in the land, the U.S. Congress. The 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act withdrew 104 million acres from the public domain in Alaska, but left 1.5 million acres open to oil and gas development after environmental review and subsequent approval by Congress and the president. The review, completed in 1987, found that oil and gas development could occur with minimal environmental impact. Congress approved exploration in 1995, but that effort was vetoed by President Clinton. President George W. Bush, sensing that his predecessor’s veto was less than fact-based, has made ANWR a key component of his national energy policy.

Past experience with oil production in Alaska demonstrated increases in caribou populations in the developed areas, belying environmentalists’ claims that drilling would harm game populations.

Native people of Alaska generally want oil development. They need the jobs.

The United States as a whole needs added industry, as well as independence from foreign oil.

“ANWR contains between 5.7 and 16 billion barrels of oil, with a mean estimate of 10.3 billion barrels. Bids to explore for this oil would raise at least $2.1 billion in federal revenues, according to the latest government forecast,” argues Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska.

“We’re talking about a very small amount of land,” adds Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska. “This nation needs the oil.”

Fortunately, Republicans have not given up on drilling in ANWR. The House Natural Resources Committee last week voted 32-14 to approve a bill that would open the refuge to drilling. It will be up to the Senate to cast the decisive vote.

We need to remind Sen. Alexander and his peers that poison pills should be reserved for the corporate world. In politics, we would appreciate honesty. We need to tell our members of Congress that we want an up-or-down vote based on the facts about ANWR, not based on ugly attachments that compromise property rights.

Alexander can be faxed at (202) 228-3398 or via e-mail at Richard_hertling@alexander.senate.gov or contact our members of Congress at the following addresses: U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, 717 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington D.C. 20510; e-mail: Senator@wyden.senate.gov. U.S. Senator Gordon Smith, 404 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington D.C. 20501; e-mail: Oregon@gsmith.senate.gov. U.S. Representative Greg Walden, 1404 Longworth Building, Washington D.C. 20515. e-mail: g.walden@mail.house.gov.