Tuesday, July 21, 2026
Home Blog Page 1150

Supreme Court today: Are Alaska Native Corps entitled to CARES funds?

9

The case before the U.S. Supreme Court today involves dollars — potentially billions of them in the future: Can Alaska Native Corporations get at the CARES Act funds distributed to tribes?

Alaska Native corporations argued today that they provide their shareholders with services like health care and housing through their nonprofit entities. In their argument, the corporations included a photograph of the Covid-19 vaccine being delivered by dogsled to illustrate the role that Native corporations play in Alaska during the Covid pandemic.

Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation, is a case that consolidates two cases involving tribal government designation with far-reaching implications beyond mere CARES Act funding, but the fundamental question the high court is answering is: Whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act are “Indian Tribe[s]” for purposes of the CARES Act, 42 U.S.C. 801(g)(1).

When writing the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Congress was trying to avoid many of the ills that prior policymaking had created in the reservation system that exists in the Lower 48. ANCSA created corporations that compete in the business world, and indeed, many ANCSA corporations have business interests all over the world. ANCSA extinguished all Alaska Native indigenous land claims for a sum of $1 billion and 38 million acres of lands in Alaska.

An important aspect of this case is that ANCSA created two types of corporations — 13 larger regional corporations, and 200 village corporations. Alaska Natives who have certain blood quantum are shareholders in both a village an regional corporation.

Although the drafters of ANCSA thought they had settled the matter of Alaska tribal governance, that issue came up in subsequent years and in the 1990s, the federal government determined that Alaska Native villages are federally recognized tribes with some aspects of sovereignty. Today, there are 229 federally recognized tribes in Alaska.

“The settled understanding for the last 45 years has been that ANCs are eligible to be treated as Indian tribes for ISDEA (Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act) purposes, even though ANCs have not, and have never been, federally recognized Indian tribes,” the corporation argued today. “That interpretation has been endorsed by all three branches of the federal government. Congress was acting against the backdrop of that settled understanding when it incorporated the ISDEA definition of Indian tribes into the CARES Act in 2020.”

Congress chose to make ANCs eligible to receive millions of dollars of coronavirus relief funds to benefit the many Alaska Natives whom they serve. “The decision below contravenes that policy judgment and threatens to shut ANCs out of a wide range of important federal programs,” the corporations argued.

Listen to the entire argument, including what the Lower 48 tribes said, at this CSPAN link.

Alaska Native Vietnam vets get burned as Interior Secretary Haaland puts two-year stay on their land allotments in Alaska

62

At first it was just a temporary stay of three months. Now, the Interior Department announced it will impose a two-year stay on implementation of new Public Land Orders in Alaska. These are land orders that have already been signed and would have granted homestead land to Alaska Native Vietnam veterans, who missed out on a special land grant that occurred while they were serving their country.

Many Alaska Native veterans may not live long enough for the two-year stay to be lifted or to benefit from a possible “next White House,” which could reverse the action of the Biden Administration.

During the first week of the Biden Administration, President Joe Biden put the temporary stay on the four public land orders that had been signed by former Sec. David Berhardt, during the last week of the Trump Administration. These were orders that Alaskans had waited on for years and were some of the final deliverables of the Trump Administration.

The Alaska delegation of Congressman Don Young, and Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan had hoped for a more productive working relationship with Sec. Deb Haaland when they voted to confirm her. Young, as Dean of the House, introduced her to the Senate, and both Alaska senators voted in favor of her confirmation, after having discussions with her about the unique matters that pertain to Alaska.

The yanking back of the land is because of the Biden Administration’s focus on climate change, according to the new order.

Read: Biden Administration pulls back lands from Alaska Native vets

“Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland has chosen to start off her relationship with Alaska by going back on the promises she made to me prior to her confirmation, undermining rural communities, and stabbing Alaska Native Vietnam-era veterans in the back,” said Sen. Dan Sullivan.

Read: House members show solidarity with Native Vietnam vets

“The impact will be felt most acutely in rural Alaska, where communities will be denied access to gravel resources to build out local village infrastructure and ANCSA and Statehood land settlements will be further delayed. Most egregiously, though, this misguided decision will drastically limit the lands available to thousands of Alaska Native Vietnam-era veterans who were unable to select land allotments due to their military service.

“It is deeply saddening and shameful that, as a result of Secretary Haaland’s decision, Alaska Native veterans who served their country admirably, and have waited decades for land allotments, may not live long enough to see them. I have spent an enormous amount of time explaining this situation to the secretary—including just before the announcement—but she put her allegiance to radical green groups over heroic Native veterans and other Alaskans. Secretary Haaland owes all of these Alaskans an explanation and, frankly, an apology,” Sullivan said.

Mainstream narrative miss? Pro-Trump Republicans raised campaign cash, while anti-Trump Murkowski saw big drop

6

The Hill, a mainstream news site in Washington, D.C. that has a politically left bias, came to the conclusion over the weekend that Republicans in Congress who voted to impeach and convict President Donald Trump earlier this year saw a bump in fundraising for their upcoming reelection bids.

“Republicans who backed impeachment see fundraising boost,” the news site said in its headline.

While news site went through the campaign finance reports of several in the House, it did not report the financial comparisons for one of seven Republican senators who voted to convict Trump. Sen. Lisa Murkowski is the only senator of the seven who will face reelection in the 2022 cycle, and in her case, she appears to have paid a price in terms of financial support for her campaign.

Murkowski raised $380,687 during the first quarter of 2021. Compared to the same quarter in 2015, the last time she ran for Senate, that’s worrisome for any senator. In 2015’s first quarter, Murkowski had raised nearly $700,000.

The Hill pointed to the fundraising prowess of Wyoming Congresswoman Liz Cheney, and Illinois Congressman Adam Kinzinger, both Republicans who supported impeachment.

Cheney raised $1.5 million in the first reporting quarter of 2021, compared to $321,000 during the same period in 2019. Kinzinger brought in $1.2 million, compared to $326,000 in the same period two years ago.

“The majority of House Republicans who voted to impeach former President Trump in January saw fundraising gains in the first three months of the year despite intense backlash from members of their own party, according to new financial disclosures,” The Hill wrote.

“Most of the Republicans who publicly went against Trump after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol saw their 2021 first quarter hauls increase from their 2019 hauls during the same period. Two of Trump’s most high-profile critics in the House received a major financial boost in particular: House GOP Conference Chairwoman Liz Cheney (Wyo.) raised $1.5 million at the start of 2021 compared to $321,000 during the same period in 2019, while Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) brought in $1.2 million during the first three months of the year compared to $326,000 in 2019,” it continued.

Sen. Murkowski needs to catch up with the funds she raised six years ago in order to hire staff for her 2022 campaign and start her ad strategy. She said as much in her recent emailed fundraising pitch to Alaskans, in which she reported she is meeting with her fundraising and finance team this weekend.

“As of right now, we are behind our fundraising and finance goals. I’m reaching out to a few tried and true Team Lisa supporters to see if you are interested in making a donation today,” Murkowski wrote.

The narrative in The Hill that going “anti-Trump” was good for lawmakers back home is not completely born out by other facts further down in the story. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, who worked to block the certification of the Electoral College results, raised $3 million in the first quarter, and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz raised $5.3 million. Both Hawley and Cruz are not up for reelection until 2024.

The Hill also pointed to Rep. Jaime Beutler, a Republican serving in a blue district in the state of Washington. Her vote to impeach Trump went over well back home, as she raised $745,000 in the first quarter, compared with $287,000 in 2019.

The Hill mentioned that Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene brought in $3.2 million during the first three months of the year, while Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise raised $3.2 million. Both are pro-Trump Republicans.

Read the story at The Hill.

Glen Biegel: Five Covid promises Dave Bronson must make to be mayor of Anchorage

By GLEN BIEGEL

Let’s think about the coalition who seek new leadership and an end to the Anchorage mayor’s and Assembly’s dictatorial powers.

You might think it is a strong coalition and constitutes a great majority.  If you think this, you would be wrong.  

The anti-emergency-power, anti-executive-order coalition is made up of: 

  1. Those who no longer believe the continued shutdowns are necessary to effectively combat Covid. In other words: The continued price is too much to pay for the return.
  2. Those who never believed shutdowns were wise or necessary to combat Covid for the small part of the population who are at risk for the disease. In other words: Other than briefly, the price (in liberty and economics) was always too high to pay.

These folks think and believe differently about government power, about this pandemic, and each have a dramatically different hope about Dave Bronson’s approach to Covid.  Candidate and Anchorage Assemblyman Forrest Dunbar knows these groups are distrustful of each other, and could break apart when skilled pressure is applied. Dave Bronson able to make the following assurances.

5 essential promises regarding Covid:

We will never run out of beds or ICU spaces

Do you remember why emergency powers were needed by the mayor and the Assembly?  It was because we would run out of ventilators and intensive care beds. 

One of the least known facts about Anchorage’s response is that we never did run out of either, and were never in danger of running out of beds. 

We can, and did, dedicate facilities for overflow beds and ICU space as needed. 

There is no reason to “flatten the curve’.”  Remember that “flatten the curve” wasn’t meant to reduce the number of people who got sick, just make sure there were beds for anyone who needed one.  

Promise 1:  Under a Bronson mayorship, we will smartly use emergency expansion facilities and spaces in Anchorage to make sure we never run out of hospital beds.  The pandemic is over, and so are the municipal executive orders.

Life in Anchorage will return to “normal

For most folks, the risk of Covid is known. The risk you carry is determined almost exclusively by co-morbidities (extreme obesity, diabetes, heart disease). 

Keeping someone at low risk (let’s call “high risk’” being above the danger from a bad flu season) from working or living normally does not protect you if you are in a high-risk group.  One-third of all excess Covid deaths were from economic and societal harm from our response, according to the CDC

Economically harming the country by forcing folks into poverty from job loss, or depression from loneliness, makes things worse. 

If you are at high risk, then protecting yourself by getting a vaccine, staying at home and away from crowds, or only visiting careful businesses is your best approach to avoiding getting Covid, and everyone else should live as normally as they can.

Promise 2: Under a Bronson mayorship, the response to Covid that individual people and businesses take will not be mandated through executive orders.

‘Normal’ will still help protect those at high risk

Americans should take their Covid response seriously because there are some who are very vulnerable to it.  ‘Normal’ life needs to take into consideration that some may want special consideration and protection.

Promise 3: Returning to ‘normal’ will not prevent you from personally taking a more cautious approach to Covid.

Businesses and individuals will largely decide their response to Covid

Government can act if risks are extremely high, and if the options for mitigation of a threat like Covid are unknown.  The need for caution comes from our understanding that a pandemic is a threat to society as a whole. In a pandemic every person can expect to see wildly elevated effects of the disease. We now know, and have known for a long time about Covid.

There are some outlying cases, but Covid is a minute threat to large parts of the population. We should also recognize that Covid is exceedingly dangerous to some. If you have an at-risk person in your family, or the customers you serve are at risk for Covid, then extraordinary measures are certainly called for and encouraged.  But that approach should be based on the actual risks related to Covid, and not fear.  Schools should open, folks at low risk should resume ‘normal’ life.

Promise 4: Businesses and families will determine their response to Covid, not the Anchorage Assembly or the Mayor.  

If a true Pandemic situation returns, extraordinary measures can never be completely off the table

The goal of a Bronson mayorship will be to distribute accurate information, giving each person the ability to make the right decision for themselves and for their customers.  While the pandemic here in Anchorage is now over (by all definitions of “pandemic”), we can never say that more dangerous strains can’t create risk for new populations or entirely new risk profiles. 

If there is a great enough systemic risk, and weighing that risk against the massive damage to our economy and liberty from severe measures is justified, then the municipality will act.  Just know that any actions taken in a Bronson administration will consider: 

  1. Your responsibility to make your own decisions about how you want to live your own life
  2. The terrible negative effects of harming local businesses from shutdowns
  3. The one-third of all excess Covid deaths that were caused by the lockdowns
  4. The understanding that, even in the face of pandemics, liberty must be supported and given to future generations.  

Promise 5: A Bronson administration reaction to future threats from Covid will carefully weight the negative effects of shutdowns on economics, life and liberty.  If they are ever used, they are truly a limited, short-term and last resort.

Glen Biegel is a conservative activist and talk show host.

Hats off to Mr. Simmons

By ANCHORAGE DAILY PLANET

It is not often we can add a hero to our pantheon of heroes who, with humor and grace, have tweaked the noses of bureaucrats busily plying their brand of idiocy.

A city code enforcer sent Jay Simmons a letter. It said his temporary 4×8 “Bronson for Mayor” sign on his house was too big and needed to come down. The sign, the city guy said, could be no larger than 6 square feet.

Simmons, a retired police cop, cut the sign in half, trimmed here and there and rehung it. It complies with the code enforcer’s order – which apparently was wrong to begin with.

Temporary political signs, it turns out, are exempt from local sign regulations. You can read the whole story here.

Our hats are off the Mr. Simmons.

Read more at the Anchorage Daily Planet

Pebbled: The secret history of ANWR and the human hand that shaped it

By MARK HAMILTON

(Editor’s note: This is the third in a series by Mark Hamilton about the history of the Pebble Project in Alaska.)

Very few Alaskans know about the establishment of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  

During the debates prior to the vote on Statehood, President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent his Secretary of the Interior Fred Seaton to Alaska, requesting one more set-aside of land to appease opponents who didn’t want to see Alaska developed.  

Mark Hamilton

The group met at Bob Atwood’s home in Anchorage. Elmer Rasmuson was there with Atwood, as well as others.  

Presented with the president’s request, Atwood spread a map of Alaska on the pool table and reached his hand as far North to the sea and as far East as the Canadian border, as far from Anchorage as he could get it.  

They traced his hand on the map, and that became ANWR. The outline was modified to use topographic delineations, by none other than Ted Stevens, who was working for the Secretary in the Interior Department, but you can see today the rough outline of a right hand.  

ANWR was established as the Arctic National Wildlife Range and was 13,900 square miles at statehood. It was expanded in 1980, and renamed Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. More acreage was added in the 1980s and the refuge reached its 30,500 square miles.

Read the 1960 historic news release from the Department of the Interior

To the dismay of those who want to portray the region as mountainous, with bubbling streams and huge caribou herds (yes, opponents claim there is a new caribou herd that will disappear), they are stuck with a mosquito- infested swamp.  

Of course, that would not gain as much public opinion, so they pretend the Andes Mountains are at stake, and even use photos of the Andes in some of their propaganda literature.  I understand that one could fool people living in other states (indeed the anti-ANWR campaigns received donations from many in the United States and even some from Europe), but citizens of Alaska?  As many as one in three Alaskans surveyed are opposed to drilling in ANWR. Notice that the politics of that polling, (still 2-1 for), keeps our politicians passionately for responsible oil drilling in ANWR.

But ANWR isn’t the answer to Alaska’s need for an economic future because oil is on the way out. President Joe Biden has voiced that position, and it is a pillar in the environmental activists’ plan for the future.  

If you are confused by the politics of it, take a look at the economics: Wells Fargo recently joined the Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and Bank of America in a decision to not provide future investment funding for Arctic oil projects. Alaska’s senators worked hard to open ANWR for lease sales. Because of the bankers, the subsequent lease sales were a nothing-burger.

If oil is on the way out, as I believe it to be, (understand this won’t happen this week—we will be pumping oil long after I am gone from this Earth) then mining must flourish.

That is going to depend upon our ability to responsibly develop the resources. Understanding at least some of the rigorous and enormously expensive process is something that all of us here in Alaska need to be spend some time on.  

In subsequent columns, I will present a short course in the very complex path of resource development, as well as thoughts to avoid being “pebbled” again.

The “Pebbled” series at Must Read Alaska is authored by Mark Hamilton. After 31 years of service to this nation, Hamilton retired as a Major General with the U. S. Army in July of 1998. He served for 12 years as President of University of Alaska, and is now President Emeritus. He worked for the Pebble Partnership for three years before retiring.

Ballot Measure 2 strikes Dunbar campaign, forced to admit its dark money is from Outside Alaska

34

New campaign finance laws known as Ballot Measure 2, passed by voters in November, are beginning to sting the Forrest Dunbar campaign.

In the current attack ad against opponent Dave Bronson launched by supporters of Forrest Dunbar, the disclaimer at the end of the ad admits that “A majority of contributions to Building a Stronger Anchorage came from outside the state of Alaska.” That’s now required by law.

Majority of money is an understatement: All of money used to attack Dave Bronson is coming from a national attack dog group.

What group? The Sixteen Thirty Fund.

Ballot Measure 2 created a wide-open jungle primary for state and national seats, as well as ranked-choice voting during the General Election. None of that will go into effect until the 2022 cycle.

But the campaign finance part of the ballot measure requires greater disclosure of where the money comes from. Dark money must be disclosed in campaigns being run this year.

Only a handful of Alaskans truly understand the ballot measure, which stretches 25 pages long. Among other things, it requires persons and entities that contribute more than $2,000 that were themselves derived from donations, contributions, dues, or gifts to disclose the true sources (as defined in law) of the political contributions.

That means that groups like Building a Stronger Anchorage have to follow the law, and tell Alaskans the real source of their funding.

Building a Stronger Anchorage is funded, as it turns out, 100 percent by the dark-money Sixteen Thirty Fund in Washington, D.C. The Sixteen Thirty Fund’s existence dates back to the scandal-ridden ACORN group that was exposed to be engaged with voting fraud by Project Veritas’ James O’Keefe.

In 2018, The Sixteen Thirty Fund spent $141 million on over 100 left-leaning and Democratic causes.

According to Influence Watch:

“The Sixteen Thirty Fund (sometimes styled “1630 Fund”) is a left-of-center lobbying and advocacy organization founded in 2008.[1] Sixteen Thirty Fund often operates alongside its charitable “sister” nonprofit New Venture Fund, which provides similar funding and fiscal sponsorship services to center-left organizations. Both groups, along with the Hopewell Fund and Windward Fund,  are administered by Arabella Advisors, a Washington, D.C.-based philanthropy consulting firm that caters to left-leaning clients.

According to its founding documents, the Sixteen Thirty Fund was created with seed funding from Americans United for Change (AUFC)ACORNUSAction, the Sierra Club, and Working America[2]

Both Sixteen Thirty Fund and New Venture Fund have been criticized as “dark money” organizations by left-leaning news outlets, including the New York Times, for serving as a way for left-wing groups to anonymously funnel money toward various advocacy issues, such as attacking vulnerable Republicans or pushing state-level environmental restrictions. [3] [4]

In April 2021, the New York Times criticized Arabella’s “system of political financing, which often obscures the identities of donors,” as “dark money,” calling the network “a leading vehicle for it on the Left.” [5] Left-leaning Politico has called the Sixteen Thirty Fund a “massive ‘dark money’ network” responsible for “boost[ing] Democrats” in the 2018 midterm elections, a “liberal dark-money behemoth,” a “secretly funded nonprofit,” and “one of the Left’s financial hubs” responsible for “attacking Republican senators” in 2019. [6] [7] [8] The Sixteen Thirty Fund has also been characterized as one of the “key groups founded to resist Trump” by the left-leaning Atlantic. [9]

In its 2018 Form 990, New Venture Fund shows a $26.7 million grant to the Sixteen Thirty Fund for “capacity building.” [10] Sixteen Thirty Fund’s Form 990 of the same year, also shows zero employees, and notes in Schedule O that “New Venture Fund (NVF) is the paymaster for Sixteen Thirty Fund payroll. NVF pays the salary and immediately invoices Sixteen Thirty Fund, which reimburses the full amount.” [11]

Arabella and its nonprofit network have been criticized as “dark money” funders both for channeling hundreds of millions of dollars to left-wing organizations and for hosting hundreds of “pop-up groups”—websites designed to look like standalone nonprofits that are really projects of an Arabella-run nonprofit. [12]

In November 2019, Politico criticized the Sixteen Thirty Fund, the 501(c)(4) advocacy wing of Arabella’s nonprofit network, as a “little-known,” “massive ‘dark money’ group [that] boosted Democrats” in the 2018 midterm elections with $140 million. “The money contributed to efforts ranging from fighting Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and other Trump judicial nominees to boosting ballot measures raising the minimum wage and changing laws on voting and redistricting in numerous states,” the left-leaning website reported. Politico also noted that Sixteen Thirty Fund’s biggest single donation (made anonymously) was for $51.7 million, “more than the group had ever raised before in an entire year before President Donald Trump was elected,” adding that “the group’s 2018 fundraising surpassed any amount ever raised by a left-leaning political nonprofit.” [13]

The left-leaning Washington Post further criticized Arabella’s Sixteen Thirty Fund as a “big campaign donor” in a November 21, 2019 opinion by the editorial board, which called on Congress to change nonprofit disclosure laws, noting in particular a $26.7 million anonymous donation to the Fund. [14] However, the Post also failed to connect the Sixteen Thirty Fund to Arabella Advisors and its other three nonprofits.

In a November 24, 2019 letter to the editor published by the Washington Post, Capital Research Center president Scott Walter identified the $26.7 million donation as originating with the New Venture Fund, the largest of Arabella’s in-house nonprofits, and confirmed Politico’s suspicion that the Sixteen Thirty Fund is “part of a larger network of dark money.”

Final: Bronson – 24,491, Dunbar -22,975

9

The final election tally from the Anchorage Clerk’s Office was posted Friday, and Dave Bronson is still two percentage points ahead of Forrest Dunbar — 24,491 to 22,975 — for Anchorage mayor.

The results will be certified by the Anchorage Assembly at a special meeting at 5 pm Tuesday. The two will head to a May 11 runoff.

In the recall ballot question for Assembly Seat G, some 6,727 people voted to retain Assemblyman Felix Rivera.

This is an extraordinary show of support, since in April of 2020, only 5,499 people voted for Rivera over his challenger; in 2017, fewer than 3,600 voted for him. Unions were effective in this race in getting out the vote.

This year’s turnout in District G of 11,897 voters eclipses the 10,937 who voted the G ballot for Assembly in 2020, and the 7,568 who marked a District G ballot in 2017.

In fact, year the turnout in that particular Assembly district was more than 22 percent higher than last year’s turnout.

In Anchorage in general, the turnout increase was 5.3 percent over last year.

More than 75,222 people voted in the April 6 election, for a 31.79 percent turnout, slightly higher than last year but lower than 2018, when there was a 36.31 percent turnout.

In other races the winners are:

  • School Board Seat B: Kelly Lessens, 25,281
  • School Board Seat E: Pat Higgins, 21,352
  • School Board Seat F: Dora Wilson, 28,700
  • School Board Seat G: Carl Jacobs, 31,846
  • All ballot propositions passed except Prop 1 and Prop 8, to purchase a new fleet of vehicles for the police department.

Bronson fundraiser hits $32,000 as momentum builds with Robbins’ help

10

A fundraiser at Saint Coyote restaurant in Anchorage on Thursday, hosted by Mike Robbins, hauled in dozens of donations, for a total of $32,630 for the day, which was double the amount Bronson had raised just one day prior.

Bronson is running against Forrest Dunbar for mayor of Anchorage.

Last night’s event brought out over 100 people to support Bronson.

Most of Bronson’s donors are from Anchorage, while many Dunbar’s individual donors are coming from out of state — San Francisco, the East Coast, and other liberal strongholds.

Hosting the event was former mayoral candidate Robbins, and political figures attending included former Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell and former Mayors Dan Sullivan and Rick Mystrom. But there were a lot of new faces, too.

Dunbar, at the end of March, had raised $251,376, while Bronson had raised $207,800. Since Thursday of last week, Bronson has raised another $108,000.

Alaska campaign law limit donations to $500 per person per candidate in a calendar year.