Every time I hear or see an ad from the group that calls itself “OneAlaska,” opposing the oil tax initiative, I am reminded that the most important part appears at the end: “Top three contributors are ConocoPhillips Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska, ExxonMobil, Anchorage, Alaska, and Hilcorp, Anchorage, Alaska.”

Without that disclosure, all those who hear or see the ads would have no clue of the one thing they should take away from the ad blitz—OneAlaska is bankrolled by the oil industry.

Without that disclosure, all those who hear or see the ads might conclude that OneAlaska is a grassroots campaign funded by nickels and dimes from people who want Alaskans “Standing Together.”

“We can make a better future for Alaska,” OneAlaska says. “Together.”

Together, the Texas-based oil companies will spend millions on this campaign, arguing that now is not the right time to raise oil taxes.

As if the companies have ever thought there was a right time to raise oil taxes. Or as if they have ever really wanted a discussion in Juneau about oil taxes that was not distorted by backroom deals. “The proposed ballot measure goes too far” and too fast, OneAlaska says.

I suspect that the only ballot measure OneAlaska would not classify as “too far and too fast” is one that comes with a tax decrease.

One of the persistent flaws in Alaska’s oil tax structure is that the tax rate is too low at prices in the $50 to $75 range. That was true under the former ACES tax system and it is true under SB 21. They were both created in a much different environment—the latter at a time when anything below $90 a barrel or $100 a barrel was considered “low.”

The Legislature hasn’t fixed this flaw because the power of the industry is such that even a bill that doesn’t go too far or too fast never has a chance. The initiative is the only way to escape the chokehold.

The people who appear in the ads for OneAlaska work for oil industry contractors or they work for Alaska businesses or business groups that tend to see things exactly the way the oil industry does. But they are not paying for the campaign.

We won’t hear much in ads directly from executives of ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Hilcorp and BP, so the legally mandated disclosure on every ad—one that they would do anything to avoid making—will have to suffice.

The Alaska Public Offices Commission requires disclosure, but that information is hard to find and not often publicized. From Feb. 19-24, Conoco, Exxon, Hilcorp and BP each made identical contributions of $788,626 each to fight the oil tax initiative., almost as if they had agreed to split the tab.

In May, Conoco and Hilcorp both made identical contributions of $659,281, while Exxon gave $676,161.43. Millions more will follow.

The rule about ad disclosures, one of the few pluses in the weak campaign finance laws, came about with an idea promoted by former Sen. Hollis French and former Rep. Les Gara a decade ago. The plan faced opposition from Republicans who would have been satisfied with a degree of disclosure akin to the impossible-to-read fine print that appears in ads for cars or the latest miracle drug.

The top-three disclosure rule has also survived attempts by some Republican legislators to kill it.

In 2015, GOP legislators proposed abolishing the APOC and creating an agency with the laughable title of “Public Integrity Commission of Alaska.” The integrity commission would have been a weaker version of the Alaska Public Offices Commission with lower penalties for campaign violations.

The bill to create the integrity commission would have repealed the requirement to identify the top three contributors by name. All in the name of integrity.

The bill didn’t pass, which is why every ad for OneAlaska has to reveal that the oil companies are again investing heavily in Alaska politics.