Fundraising in Anchorage Assembly campaigns has dropped off a cliff
Mar. 6—With less than a month until voting closes in Anchorage's municipal elections, the competitive frenzy and lavish spending surrounding district-level races in recent years are mostly absent. Donors are spending a fraction of what they did in the 2022 and 2023 cycles. And in several cases, candidates are functionally running unopposed.
Election packets will be mailed to voters on March 11, and ballots must be cast in person or postmarked by April 1. Half of the Assembly's 12 seats will be decided, and with just two incumbents running, at least four members elected this spring will be new to the body.
In spite of the stakes, the most recent round of campaign finance reports published by the Alaska Public Offices Commission paints a very different picture from those of recent years.
Campaign money in the 2022 and 2023 election cycles was, by local standards, off the charts. That was in part because of a uniquely contentious political phase coming out of the pandemic lockdowns, the election of Mayor Dave Bronson and clashes between the Assembly and Bronson administration during unruly, packed public meetings. The other factor at play was a 2021 federal court decision striking down the state's individual campaign contributions, undamming a reservoir of political spending. In 2024, there was a mayor's race and subsequent runoff between Bronson and Mayor Suzanne LaFrance that replicated many of the same dynamics, but no Assembly seats were on the ballot.
This year, just a fraction of the money raised in many district-level races has been brought in. What's more, several races are significantly lopsided in terms of campaign resources and operations, with one candidate doing all the fundraising while their rivals are — in some cases — mounting no visible campaign at all.
One example of this year's trend is in West Anchorage. By this point in the 2023 campaign, eventual winner Anna Brawley had raised nearly $69,000 against her main rival's $64,552 in what was one of that year's most competitive races. This year, incumbent Kameron Perez-Verdia, seeking a third term, has raised $52,468, according to his latest APOC disclosure. Neither of the two other candidates who filed for that seat, Jonathan Duckworth and Amie Steen, reported any fundraising to APOC, nor do either of them have campaign websites set up.
The dynamic is the same in East Anchorage and South Anchorage, the two most expensive district races in 2022 and 2023, respectively, as well as in the Midtown district.
In 2022, the contest between incumbent Forrest Dunbar and Bronson-aligned challenger Stephanie Taylor racked up close to a half-million dollars, a record for an Assembly race. This year in East Anchorage, though there are still weeks to go, first-time candidate Yarrow Silvers reported $33,405 in donations to her campaign. Neither of her challengers, Angela Frank or John Stiegele, filed campaign reports.
South Anchorage saw the most expensive race in the 2023 cycle between Zac Johnson and Rachel Ries. This year, just one candidate, Keith McCormick, has mounted a visible campaign, raising $21,048 according to his latest APOC filing. His challenger, Darin Colbry, reported no fundraising and doesn't have a campaign website.
And in Midtown, where there is no incumbent candidate, first-time candidate Erin Baldwin Day, a community organizer and policy advocate, has raised close to $40,000 from a mix of liberal-leaning politicos, union political action groups, and current Assembly members. Running against her is Don Smith, who represented South Anchorage on the Assembly between 1975 and 1985, but has no evident campaign fundraising or spending so far this year.
Money does not necessarily win local political races. But particularly in low turnout municipal races lacking an incumbent who has name recognition, it can play a big role drawing votes.
At this point the most competitive Assembly seat is shaping up to be in downtown Anchorage, between the Daniels: Daniel Volland, the incumbent, and Daniel George, a Realtor with a background in Republican state and congressional politics.
By Feb. 28, Volland raised $37,405 from a mix of elected officials, small donors, family members, and sizable contributions from organized labor groups.
George raised about half of that, $18,131. However, his donors represent an unusual coalition to support the more conservative candidate in what is typically Anchorage's most liberal voting district. George's most recent fundraiser on March 3 was hosted by prior elected officials spanning the political spectrum, from previous Assembly members like Sheila Selkregg and John Weddleton to prominent local conservatives such as recent Anchorage first lady Deb Bronson and former Republican state Sen. Anna MacKinnon. Among George's donors are several vocal neighborhood and zoning advocates, as well.
A third candidate, Nicolas Danger, has not reported any fundraising.
In Eagle River, Jared Goecker, who ran unsuccessfully to replace Republican state Sen. Kelly Merrick, reported raising $6,264, including a contribution from the Alaska Republican Party. Challenger Kyle Walker reported raising $1,490 during February from four donations. A third candidate, David Littleton, reported nothing to APOC.
Campaign strategy has shifted in recent years, as Anchorage voters and candidates have grown accustomed to ballots arriving to them in the mail weeks before they have to be returned. In recent cycles, candidates have sat on their war-chests until roughly when ballots begin arriving in peoples' mailboxes, then blitzed potential voters' with direct mail and digital ads during the small window when many people have newly started tuning into the looming election.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
19 hours ago
- The Hill
Veterans pay debts while reality TV elites get pardons
It's disheartening to see veterans penalized for government errors while wealthy tax evaders walk free and secure media deals. Justice should honor sacrifice — yet far too often, it rewards fame and fortune. This is not just mismanagement; it is a systemic betrayal. We must demand a system that truly values those who serve. The Department of Veterans Affairs is reclaiming from disabled veterans billions in alleged overpayments. Many of these veterans were unaware of this until they received debt notices months or even years later. Meanwhile, elites emerge from prison with smiles, stylists and TV contracts. Todd and Julie Chrisley, convicted of millions in tax fraud, were pardoned by President Trump. Days later, news broke that they would return to television with a rebooted reality show produced by Scout Productions. The agents are reportedly tied to Trump-aligned media and political circles, proving once again how power and privilege convert even scandal into profit. And while they sign new deals, veterans remain on hold with the VA Debt Management Center, disputing errors that might cost them rent. Where is our president and commander-in-chief? The numbers don't make sense. The VA has issued $5.1 billion in overpayments since 2021 and is now aggressively trying to recoup those funds from veterans, many disabled, retired or transitioning out of service. IRS data from 2024 shows the wealthiest Americans evade more than $150 billion in taxes each year. And what did Congress do? It rescinded $20.2 billion in IRS funding, cutting the resources needed to pursue those very tax cheats. In other words, the Trump administration is actively targeting working-class veterans and letting billionaires off the hook. Service, sacrifice and integrity are not political ideas, but American ideals. When we demand repayments from disabled veterans while pardoning millionaire fraudsters, we don't just betray those who served, but the very foundation of what America is meant to represent. We don't need more lawmakers, but leaders who remember the purpose and legacy of the oath to defend life, liberty, and the sacred right of free will. This is not a partisan issue, and it's time to call this what it is: moral decay at the highest level. Tim James, a retired U.S. Navy lieutenant, served 22 years honorably — 11 years enlisted and 11 years as a commissioned officer through the Navy's Limited Duty Officer program. He is a volunteer with Veterans For Ethical Leadership and advocates for policies that uphold the dignity of service and expose systemic failures affecting veterans and democracy.
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Poll shows Trump's clash with courts puts Senate GOP on defense
New polling of likely voters in Senate battleground states has found that President Trump's frequent clashes with federal courts are becoming a hot issue that could put Senate Republican candidates on the defensive in 2026. A poll of 1,000 likely voters in 2026 Senate battlegrounds, obtained exclusively by The Hill, found that 53 percent disapprove of Trump's handling of the courts, including 89 percent of Democrats, 55 percent of independents and 39 percent of self-identified non-MAGA Republicans. The poll was conducted by Global Strategy Group, a Democratic-aligned polling firm, on behalf of Demand Justice, a Democratic-aligned judicial advocacy group. The survey found that more than two-thirds of voters, 72 percent, said they are concerned about Trump's response to court orders and 48 percent said they were extremely concerned by what they saw as the president's refusal to obey court orders. The poll found that 68 percent of voters surveyed said they viewed congressional Republicans as helping Trump evade legal norms, and 44 percent said they viewed that dynamic as extremely concerning. It surveyed voters in Colorado, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio and Texas. The Senate's two most vulnerable Republican incumbents are Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) is the chamber's most vulnerable Democrat. 'The data is clear: Americans increasingly reject Donald Trump's attacks on the rule of law and the courts. Over two-thirds are concerned about this blatant disregard for court orders and the threat that it poses to the rights of every person in this country,' said Maggie Jo Buchanan, the interim executive director of Demand Justice.'When Trump treats judicial rulings as mere suggestions instead of legally binding obligations, it sends a chilling message that our legal protections are meaningless,' Buchanan added. 'An overwhelming majority of Americans across the political spectrum are concerned that this calculated defiance sets a precedent where individuals may face unfair trials, see their rights disregarded without consequence, and find themselves powerless to seek justice,' she added. U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia James Boasberg criticized the Trump administration earlier this year for disregarding his order to stop the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador. The administration argued that the deportation flights had already departed the United States at the time Boasberg issued his order and asserted they later complied with a written order. The Trump White House has also come under criticism for barring a reporter and photographer from The Associated Press from the Oval Office in April despite a court order from U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia Trevor McFadden ruling that the government could not retaliate against the news agency for refusing to follow Trump's order renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. The poll also found that 70 percent of voters that Trump's allies in Congress will help him pick judges who will do what he wants instead of acting independently, with 43 percent of respondents saying they're 'extremely' concerned. The poll's sample included 44 percent of self-identified Democrats, 44 percent of self-identified Republicans and 12 percent of self-identified Democrats. It was conducted between May 28 and June 1 and had a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3.1 percent.
Boston Globe
2 days ago
- Boston Globe
Make that another $1 million: Dueling Super PACs in Boston mayor's race rake in more cash
A separate super PAC backing Kraft remained busy, too. 'Your City, Your Future,' which has already dropped Taken together, the outside groups reported pulling in $973,101 between their newly filed reports. The contributions pushed the total raised by the two super PACs to more than $3.9 million through mid-June, with 'Your City, Your Future' — and its $3.16 million in contributions — accounting for the vast majority of that. Advertisement The 'Bold Boston' super PAC first formed in 2023, when it spent nearly $100,000 supporting a trio of Wu allies in their successful bids for city council. Advertisement It effectively re-emerged in mid-March, roughly a month after Kraft Mike Firestone has worked under Wu since she took the mayor's office in 2021. Karen Firestone has been a longtime contributor to Wu, whom she first donated to in 2013, and other state Democrats, including Governor Maura Healey, campaign finance records show. Efforts to reach Karen Firestone were not immediately successful Thursday. Spokespeople for 'Bold Boston' and Wu's campaign also didn't immediately comment. 'Bold Boston' also received $175,000 in early June from the Environmental League of Massachusetts Action Fund Independent Expenditure PAC, whose only donation so far this year was $150,000 in March from billionaire A slate of labor-aligned groups also donated heavily to the Wu-aligned group, including the 1199 SEIU MA PAC, which gave $100,000, and the Unite Here Tip State and Local Fund, which gave $150,000. The Green Advocacy Project, a Bay Area-based 501c(4) organization that gives heavily to The group took a variety of smaller donations, too, including $10,000 from Barbara Lee, a Cambridge philanthropist who's worked for decades helping get women elected office, and $25,000 from William Lee, a partner at WilmerHale, which Super PACs are allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, and, unlike candidates themselves, they can take donations directly from businesses. They are barred, however, from coordinating with any candidates or their campaigns. Advertisement The attacks 'Bold Boston' has launched against Kraft echo the arguments Wu and her allies have made on the campaign trail: that Kraft, the son of Kraft, a longtime nonprofit leader, is loaning his campaign $2 million from his own wallet. The Kraft-aligned 'Your City, Your Future' super PAC has taken $1 million from New Balance chair and billionaire Jim Davis, as well as billionaire businessman Paulson, who gave $100,000 Matt Stout can be reached at
