CAMPAIGN: He had more individual contributors; she saw plenty of groups donate.
Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski trounced former Gov. Tony Knowles, a Democrat, in November's fiercely contested U.S. Senate election, but Knowles didn't lose for lack of trying -- or lack of cash.
The most recent tallies of campaign finance reports show Knowles eked out a fund-raising triumph, gathering $5.8 million to fuel his challenge. But Murkowski was a close second, amassing $5.7 million in contributions.
The race was considered crucial to both major parties in an election year when control of the Senate hung in the balance, and it was touted as the most expensive statewide contest in Alaska's history.
Murkowski and Knowles spent more than $11 million between them; in contrast, Murkowski's father, Gov. Frank Murkowski, and former Lt. Gov. Fran Ulmer spent about $3 million in the 2002 governor's race.
More than 80 percent of Knowles' contributions came from individuals, a category that provided about 60 percent of Murkowski's haul, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, D.C.-based nonpartisan organization that tracks campaign funding.
But political interest groups contributed more than twice as much to Murkowski as to Knowles, the center's analysis shows.
Political action committees gave nearly $2 million to Murkowski and made up 35 percent of her donations. Knowles received $785,000 from such PACs, or 13 percent of his total.
Lawyers and law firms were the most generous industry sector giving to Knowles, contributing a total of about $750,000, according to the center's campaign finance analysis. The former two-term governor also got about $335,000 from retirees and about $275,000 from people and groups in securities and investment.
Retirees gave Murkowski about $235,000, and lawyers and legal firms donated about $202,000 to her campaign. She received $194,000 from people and groups affiliated with the oil and gas industry and another $185,000 from health professionals.
"What money did for Murkowski was to allow her to cut her own swath, both in person and through the media, as an individual distinct from her father," University of Alaska professors Carl Shepro and Clive Thomas wrote in a post-race analysis.
"For Knowles, money added to his high profile in the state and enabled him to compete effectively."
The amounts spent by the candidates don't include millions more expended by the national political parties and several independent political groups, which also bombarded Alaskans with television and radio commercials in the last intense months of the campaign.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee each spent roughly $3 million on the Alaska Senate race.
Citizens for a Strong Senate, an advocacy group for Democratic causes, spent about $305,000 on media on Knowles' behalf, while Virginia-based Americans for Job Security bought $68,000 in television and radio ads to help Murkowski's Senate bid, according to the analysis by the University of Alaska professors.
Alaska's Senate race is another example of expensive races in rural states, said Steve Weiss, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics.
"We're used to seeing big races in big states cost a lot of money," Weiss said. "But what is still surprising are expensive races in rural states. And not so long ago it would have been inconceivable for candidates to spend $12 million in a Senate race in Alaska."
The runaway winner for the nation's most expensive Senate campaign last year also was rural. In South Dakota, Republican John Thune and Senate minority leader Tom Daschle spent $35 million to sway voters in a state with a population of roughly 760,000. Thune, a former three-term congressman, unseated the powerful Senate incumbent.
But Murkowski, who was appointed to her seat in 2002 by her father, was considered vulnerable from the beginning because of the nepotism issue. And the challenge by Knowles, a two-term governor, set up Alaska for intense national scrutiny.
"This was known to be a competitive race very early on, and it's no surprise it broke fund-raising records for the state," Weiss said.
Both sides used e-mail, the Internet, mail, radio and television ads to get out the message, but according to recent campaign finance reports, both candidates also poured money into polling in the last weeks of the race. And Knowles' campaign funneled much of its money at the end to get-out-the-vote operations, Knowles campaign spokesman Matt McKenna said.
But an advertising push by the National Republican Senatorial Committee in the last two weeks on Murkowski's behalf and the support of Sen. Ted Stevens and Congressman Don Young "did much to push her to victory," professors Shepro and Thomas wrote.
Despite the millions spent, however, the Murkowski-Knowles campaign isn't the first gold-plated statewide race in Alaska history, according to Jerry McBeath, a political science professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
In the 1982 governor's race, McBeath said, Democrat Bill Sheffield spent about $19 for every vote he got in defeating Republican Tom Fink and Libertarian Dick Randolph. When adjusted for inflation, that equals about $35 per vote today, he said.
When you work the arithmetic on the money spent in the 2004 Senate race, Murkowski spent roughly $36 per vote, while Knowles spent about $41 per vote.
Alaska is an expensive place to run a statewide campaign, with localized media and huge distances to cover, McBeath said. But one difference in the Senate race was the influx of Outside money, from national political parties and interest groups, he said.
"If it's a competitive race and the party has a reasonable chance of winning the seat, the party is likely to invest as much as it needs into the race," Weiss said.
Daily News reporter Nicole Tsong can be reached at ntsong@adn.com or 257-4450.
