By LAURA ANTONSEN
In the realm of political campaigns, particularly those in Alaska, the concept of nonpartisanship is often scrutinized. Candidates who claim to be nonpartisan are expected to maintain a clear distance from partisan activities and support, ensuring an unbiased stance that appeals to a broad spectrum of voters. However, this definition is called into question when a candidate’s financial and political affiliations suggest otherwise.
Case in Point: Donations and allegiances
In House District 1 there are 3 candidates, Jeremy Bynum, Republican, and Agnes Moran and Grant Echohawk, both running as “nonpartisan.” But are they really nonpartisan?
Agnes Moran has donated to the Democrat Party, and its fundraising mechanisms, more than 98 times since February 2019, which raises significant questions about her nonpartisan claim.
Specific instances include contributions to Democrat Congresswoman Mary Peltola, the Progressive Era PAC (described as a Democrat liberal organization), and seven donations to Democrat presidential campaigns, including the Biden-Harris ticket.
Grant Echohawk, who identifies as a lifelong Democrat, supports Democrat movements, and has publicly backed the Harris campaign further blurs the line between nonpartisan and partisan politics.
According to both these candidate’s statements, these affiliations and actions suggest an active involvement in promoting Democrat agendas, which conflicts with the principle of being nonpartisan.
Additionally, their campaigns are being funded and directly supported by the Democrat Party, further indicating their partisan alignment. These candidates have also received strong financial support from dedicated Democrats as well as being listed on the Alaska Democrat websites.
Nonpartisanship vs. Partisanship: The Voter’s Perspective
For constituents, understanding the true nature of a candidate’s political stance is crucial. Transparency about a candidate’s support and financial contributions can significantly influence voter trust and decision-making. When a candidate with a history of supporting Democrat causes runs as a nonpartisan, it can be perceived as an attempt to mask their partisan leanings to appeal to a wider audience or avoid the potential stigma associated with party politics.
This strategy might allow candidates to garner support from undecided or moderate voters who might otherwise be hesitant to support a clearly defined partisan candidate, or even conservative voters who remember the candidate’s past beliefs but are unaware of their current beliefs and ideology.
The Importance of Transparency
District 1 voters have the right to be fully informed about where a candidate’s allegiances lie. Financial and political support are strong indicators of a candidate’s values and policy priorities. Thus, it is imperative for candidates to be transparent about their political affiliations and past support for partisan causes. This honesty allows voters to make informed decisions based on a clear understanding of a candidate’s true stance.
Conclusion
A candidate who consistently supports Democrat causes through financial contributions and public endorsements can hardly be considered nonpartisan. Such actions demonstrate a clear alignment with Democrat Party values and policies, which should be transparently communicated to the electorate. For the integrity of the political process and voter trust, it is essential that candidates clearly define their political positions, ensuring that their campaigns are a true reflection of their values and commitments.
Laura Antonsen is Chairwoman of District 1 Republicans in Ketchikan.
Whenever a candidate claims themselves to be non partisan, it’s a red flag to me and tells me they are choosing to hide behind the Democrat label so they can fool you into voting for them. Schrage has had immense success with this ploy. Time for voters to wise up!
Agree totally.
I cannot think of a single “independent” politician that does not caucus with the Democrats. There is likely one, but I cannot think of any.
Thanks for this information. Democrats in Alaska have a history of hiding behind the Independent label. I didn’t know that they hide behind the non partisan false front also. If they can’t be honest enough to just come out with how they really feel and what they really support then they shouldn’t be trusted to represent us. It’s time to put actual conservatives back in control around here.
While Democrat candidates often run as independents, it does not mean that independent voters are Democrats. Independent voters in Alaska are the biggest bloc of voters in the state and have been for a while. They are a very real threat to the Uniparty, which is comprised of Republican and Democrat corrupt establishment quislings whose only goal is to grift as much money and power for themselves and their respective political Party. This is the reason why the Legacy Media despises independent voters!
While the politicians pulling that scam are bad enough, the PACs and advocacy groups are even worse.
.
Vote Alaska Before Party might convince people to vote Alaska first if they were equally critical of candidates from both major parties. But, they universally cut down Republicans/conservatives without a single peep about any anti-Alaska actions from the leftists.
.
LaFrance is in the Mayor’s office because of the work of the 907 Initiative. It is interesting how those ads stopped as soon as Mayor Bronson lost the run off. Promoting what is best for the 907 area code? Not so much. Promoting what is best for the Democrats? Oh.. yeah they are.
.
And, the non-partisan news media (The Alaska Landmine and the Alaska Current spring to mind) are anything but non-partisan.
.
In my experience, if you are non-partisan, you are just hiding the fact that you support the Democrats.
I don’t trust her have full companies on the voting. The state has already proven that they’re fumbling the ball and as far as the national vote goes, It’s as crooked as the Burma Road.
The election process has been hijacked by the elites in the rich, and I doubt the real vote has been counted Correctly in the past few years
Democrats also hide behind the ” Republican ” label.. Yes, Princess!! I’m talking about you!! See also Merrick.
On this subject, I would strongly recommend watching Joel Davidson’s interview with David Eastman on Alaska Watchman about “non-partisanship” in our legislature. Basically, even though Republicans have a majority, they form comittees, immediately cave to democrats, and shut any actual conservatives out of the process. Eastman describes it as “dysfuntional”.
Non partisan is really meaningless in politics. Independent or undeclared are valid, but non-partisan? That’s just about impossible. Sometimes non-partisan is described as focusing on What’s best for……(fill in the entity). Deciding that question is partisan as hell!
As a rule, when one sees the word, ‘nonpartisan’, one should read it as, ‘Democrat’ …
Comments are closed.