OPINION: Money speaks loudly in deciding Alaska’s elections

Money talks and it talks no louder than when secret sources shovel boatloads of it into political campaigns.

Take, for instance, the recent tussle over Ballot Measure 1 on the Nov. 8 ballot. The measure asked Alaskans a simple decennial question required by Article 13 of the Alaska Constitution: “Shall there be a Constitutional Convention?”

Alaska and 13 other states require such a question appear on ballots automatically after a specific period of time. In Alaska, it is every 10 years. If a majority votes yes a process begins to call a convention. Early numbers from last week’s election indicate the answer to the question in Alaska again is not only no, but hell no, by a 2-1 margin.

No surprise. The question never has done well here. In 1970, it squeaked by, but quickly was dumped after the Alaska Supreme Court ruled the question’s language was misleading. It was amended, placed on the 1972 ballot and failed by 2-1. It tanked by wide margins in 1982, 1992, 2002 and again in 2012.

In this year’s election run-up, those who supported calling a convention to rejigger this or fix that were left holding the short end of the money stick. They barely drew in enough dough to pay for a cheeseburger, while the other side was living large — caviar and Wagyu steak large.

“No on 1: Defend the Constitution” led the opposition, saying there was too much at stake to allow whackadoodles to do heavens-knows-what to Alaska’s founding document. Its seven-day report to the Alaska Public Offices Commission showed it had collected more than $4.7 million to head off a convention — and spent nearly $4 million.

While much of the money came from individual Alaskans, unions kicked in, too. The National Education Association, for instance, anted up $500,000. A huge chunk of the cash to oppose a convention — more than $3.3 million — came from the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a left-leaning, Washington, D.C.-based dark money, advocacy and lobbying group. The Atlantic magazine described it as “the indisputable heavyweight of Democratic dark money.”

Where all that untraceable loot came from before it reached the Sixteen Thirty Fund on its way to an Alaska convention fight is anybody’s guess. That is bothersome. While I agree a convention was a lousy idea, the use of dark money to fend it off is troubling.

On the contrary, the seven-day APOC report for ConventionYes, a lead group pushing for a convention, shows it garnered only chump change, slightly more than $61,000, most of it from ordinary Alaskans. The report showed it spent about $45,000, or slightly more than 1% of what its opponents spent.

You might wonder, as I did, how wads of money from who-knows-where ended up in the Frozen North. After all, Alaska in 2020 approved Ballot Measure 2, which was supposed to make campaign finance skullduggery a thing of the past. Hype surrounding the total revamp of our election system — laughably pulled off with $7 million in largely dark money, by the way — promised it would eliminate anonymous campaign donations. Surprise! It covers state candidates, but not state ballot measures or initiatives, federal races or recall elections.

That is quite a loophole. Nobody likes it, but cash money American is the lifeblood of political life — especially if you plan to win. It buys media time. It pays for travel. It pays for the odds and ends of campaigning.

Maggie Koerth, in “How money affects elections,” which appeared on FiveThirtyEight, a New York-based website focusing on opinion poll analysis, politics, statistical data and other subjects, observes: ”How strong is the association between campaign spending and political success? For House seats, more than 90% of candidates who spend the most win. From 2000 through 2016, there was only one election cycle where that wasn’t true: 2010.” That year, 86% won, says Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group that tracks campaign fundraising and spending.

If money is crucial to those in the political fray, immediate disclosure of its source is equally as important to the average Alaska trying to make sense of things. Money never has been the problem; the strings that go with it cause the nightmares.

There should be absolutely no instance in state elections — or federal contests, either, for that matter — where money is pumped into any political effort by the left or the right and its source not be immediately disclosed and posted on state and federal websites for public perusal.

While all this is necessary for clean elections and an informed electorate — and lawmakers know it — I will not hold my breath awaiting change.

Money, after all, talks. No, unfortunately, it shouts.

Paul Jenkins is a former Associated Press reporter, managing editor of the Anchorage Times, an editor of the Voice of the Times and former editor of the Anchorage Daily Planet.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.