Opinion: SB 92 Ignores Alaska’s Spending Issue; Next Governor Should Say “No” to SB 92

By Edward Martin, Jr.

In Alaska, the Constitution does not ask governors to chase revenue. It commands them to faithfully execute the law and protect the people’s resources. 

Alaska’s fiscal debate has once again circled back to oil taxes— this time through Senate Bill 92 and renewed calls to impose an income tax on oil and gas entities organized as S-corporations. The framing suggests that Alaska’s problem is insufficient taxation. That premise is false. 

Alaska’s problem is not a lack of taxing authority. It is a failure to govern within constitutional mandates already in place. 

The Governor’s Duty Is Clear and Non-Negotiable 

Under Article III, Section 16 of the Alaska Constitution, the Governor “shall faithfully execute the laws.” That language is not symbolic. It is mandatory. It does not authorize governors to compensate for fiscal mismanagement by selectively redesigning the tax code. It requires enforcement of existing law, respect for constitutional limits, and equal application of policy. 

A governor does not fulfill this duty by proposing new revenue schemes when budgets tighten, but by insisting on discipline, legality, and restraint— especially when political pressure demands shortcuts. 

This leads to two questions every gubernatorial candidate should be willing to answer plainly: 

If elected, will you commit — as required by Article III, Section 16 — to enforcing existing spending laws and constitutional limits before seeking new or targeted taxes? Will you veto legislation that selectively burdens one industry or corporate structure to compensate for government overspending?  

Article VIII Is About Stewardship, Not Exploitation 

Just as important is Article VIII, which governs Alaska’s natural resources. It declares that those resources are to be developed, used, and conserved for the maximum benefit of the people. That mandate assumes long-term thinking, stability, and fairness— not short-term revenue extraction driven by annual budget gaps. 

Article VIII does not convert resource development into a captive funding source for an undisciplined government. It presumes that encouraging investment, production, and responsible development is itself the path to maximum public benefit. 

Repeatedly changing tax structures, singling out specific entities, or targeting one producer through indirect means does not maximize benefit. It shrinks the base, discourages investment, and undermines confidence in Alaska as a place to do business. 

That is not conservation. It is erosion. 

Which raises another question candidates should answer directly: 

How does selectively increasing taxes on one oil and gas producer or corporate form satisfy Article VIII’s requirement that resources be managed for the maximum long-term benefit of all Alaskans— rather than as a short-term fix for a spending problem the Constitution already requires government to control? 

Equal Application of the Law: The Line That Must Not Be Crossed 

A tax system that targets one industry, one ownership structure, or effectively one taxpayer abandons neutrality. Conservatives should be especially alert to this danger. Once government normalizes picking winners and losers, no sector is safe. 

Today it is oil and gas S-corps. Tomorrow it may be family businesses, contractors, or individual Alaskans whose income becomes “convenient” to reach. 

The Constitution does not permit that kind of governance. 

Alaska’s Crisis Is Discipline, Not Authority 

Before any governor endorses new taxes, one fundamental question must be answered honestly: Has the State of Alaska demonstrated constitutional restraint on spending?

Until the answer is yes, proposals for “new revenue” are not solutions; they are evasions of constitutional duty. The Constitution already provides the framework for sustainable governance: limited government, uniform laws, protection of property, and disciplined budgeting. 

A governor faithful to Article III, Section 16 would insist those tools be used first. 

A Word on Surveys

Surveys can be useful, but they are no substitute for constitutional scrutiny. When candidates are asked only what they support — rather than what they are duty-bound to enforce, then the public is left with preferences instead of accountability. 

A serious state deserves serious questions. Alaska’s Constitution does not ask future governors how they feel about revenue. It tells them what they must do: faithfully execute the law, apply it equally, restrain government, and steward the people’s resources for long-term benefit. 

The Conservative Standard for Alaska’s Next Governor 

A constitutionally grounded governor should: 

• Enforce spending limits before demanding new revenue 
• Reject targeted or punitive taxation schemes 
• Defend equal application of the law 
• Preserve fiscal and legal stability for long-term investment 
• Uphold Article VIII’s mandate for responsible resource stewardship 

Alaska’s future does not depend on how cleverly we can tax one industry. 

It depends on whether our leaders are willing to govern as the Constitution requires, even when that discipline is politically inconvenient. That is not a partisan demand. It is a constitutional one.

What Are the Candidates Saying?

Read Survey Series: Which Candidates for Governor Support Increasing Taxes on Oil and Gas, Which Don’t, and Why?