Candidate Marna Sanford of Fairbanks is a strong proponent of raising taxes on oil and plans to vote for the Democrat nominee Al Gross, she said during a debate with Robert Myers on Tuesday.
The event for Senate District B took place on a Zoom video teleconference and was sponsored by the Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce. The moderator was Bill Bailey.
When asked if she is in favor of Ballot Measure One, which would jack up oil taxes, Sanford was a strong “Yes.”
She’s also in favor of broad-based taxes on Alaskans. When asked by the moderator, Sanford didn’t hesitate — she raised her green “yes” card, eager to tax.
In past messages on social media, Sanford has supported full tribal sovereignty, the Green New Deal climate change agenda, and Bernie Sanders, the socialist senator and former candidate for president. Sanford signed the recall petition against Gov. Mike Dunleavy last year.
She is running against Republican Rob Myers, who beat John Coghill in the primary election by just 14 votes.
Senate Seat B represents North Pole, Ester, Goldstream, and Farmers Loop.
We constantly are tickled by the media’s left-leaning antics in putting their favorite candidate’s best foot forward.
Take, for instance, a piece that appeared on KTUU headlined, “Fact Checker: Alyse Galvin ‘isn’t a liberal’ campaign ad.” Galvin is running to unseat Congressman Don Young.
The campaign ad in question, paid for by the Alyse for Alaska campaign, says through a grandfatherly man, “Don’t believe anyone who says she’s a liberal.”
So, is she?
“Alaska News Source’s Fact Checker cannot necessarily fact check if Galvin is a liberal or not, as many people will have a different opinion on what constitutes a liberal, but Fact Checker can evaluate claims to evidence of what Galvin has previously stated,” the story says.
In the past, Fact Checker noted, she has said she will stand up to the national Democrats on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, protect gun rights, strengthen our military, balance the budget and oppose higher taxes on working Alaskans.
“Fact Checker rates this generally true, based on Galvin’s positions and statements throughout her present-day and 2018 campaigns,” the story says.
Really? That’s it? So, if Galvin says all that is true, it is “generally true,” the Fact Checker says. That, despite Galvin being the Democratic Party nominee, taking truckloads of money from Democrats and getting lots of love from liberals such as Nancy Pelosi. That, despite her giving money to a long list of hard-Left liberals, such Ethan Berkowitz, Byron Mallott, Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton.
This is her second run against Young. The first time she ran against him, in 2018, she ran as a Democrat. This time she is masquerading as an independent. She has received campaign backing from the New Democrat Coalition Action Fund, Nancy Pelosi for Congress, Committee for a Democratic Future, Democrats Reshaping America, Elect Democratic Women, End Citizens United and Schiff for Congress, FEC records show.
They must believe her a liberal, “fact-check” or not. The rest of us do, too.
Respectfully, I’m voting “no” on Ballot Measure 1. “All or nothing” direct initiatives are generally an unwise way to change complex state policy. Ballot Measure 1, which focuses on our complex state oil production tax, is no exception.
Noteworthy: Prior to the “vote of the people,” Alaska’s courts largely allow “broad leeway” for citizen initiatives that don’t have clear, egregious legal infirmities. What does that mean? The initiative may pass the minimum initiative standards for a statewide vote, but that does not necessarily mean they are insulated fromfuture litigation, once they become law…especially as practical “implementation problems” arise.
While the merits of changing our oil tax structure is debatable in some circles (substantially similar legislation to raise oil taxes failed to get support in the legislature over the years, as many still remember the not-too-distant, detrimental consequences surrounding ACES), Ballot Measure 1, if passed, may lead us down an uncertain, risky path.
Uncertainty is likely because of the way the initiative is written. Potential issues, including constitutional issues, arise and may not be quickly resolved through subsequent statute and/or regulation.
Here is just one example:
Section 7 focuses on the disclosure of “all filing and supporting information” for the payment of taxes for producers at fields including Alpine, Kuparuk, and Prudhoe Bay (“the fields”). There is no distinction between “confidential” and “non-confidential” records.
If implemented, Alaska would be the only regime to require public disclosure of all documents associated with tax filings.
As written, “all” records (including amended returns, audits, settlement negotiations, speech/communications between company personnel and Department of Revenue staff) no matter how sensitive (or useful to competitors) “shall be a matter of public record.”
Does this raise equal protection concerns under Article 1, Section 1 of the Alaska Constitution? In other words, are similarly situated people (i.e. a handful of Alaska-operating energy companies) being treated differently, even within the state of Alaska? Some are forced to disclose, depending on parameters designed by the initiative-backers, some aren’t.
If “all” records concerning the legacy fields are compelled for disclosure (including normally privileged speech or speech protected under Article 1, Section 5), is “all” the least restrictive alterative? Are the initiative proponents’ reasons “enough” to create this special disclosure requirement specifically for the producers at those fields?
Also, Alaska, historically, has a broadly interpreted right to privacy (found in Article 1, Section 22 of the Alaska Constitution). That same right to privacy protects private interests against government overreach.
In these circumstances, how much does the public disclosure of “all filing and supporting information” correlate with Alaska’s unique constitutional right to privacy?
These are all open questions.
Answering those questions will take time.
In some cases, if history is an indicator, timing is critical…and opportunity may be fleeting for our state (as investment decisions are measured against other world-wide jurisdictions).
In 2020, eliminating “question marks” is critical for all of us. If the voters approve BM1, there will very likely be an extended period of uncertainty within the petroleum industry. The terms of the initiative, as evidenced by, minimally, Section 7 (where the government is forcing public disclosure of all tax-related documents), will generate conflict, delay, and possibly litigation.
That’s bad for the producers, bad for potential investors, and most of all, bad for Alaska.
Chad Hutchison was born and raised in Fairbanks, Alaska. He is an attorney.
Rarely do I get involved directly in our District 6 politics. This year I have to make an exception.
A spoiler has entered our District 6 race as a so-called conservative. He has not supported our president and he bolted the Republican Party to avoid running against Mike Cronk in the primary.
Now he is set to be spoiler by splitting the conservative vote and handing the district and our future to a leftwing activist who claims Nenana as her home.
With the conservative vote split and liberals now seeing an opportunity she can win with only 35% of the vote, they have been pouring money into her leftwing campaign. That would be a disaster for our district, as the values we cherish are one by one being threatened by the radical left.
I urge all conservatives to support Republican Mike Cronk. Please do not waste a vote for a spoiler who is trying to present himself as a credible conservative candidate. Any person who has manipulated the system to avoid the primary and has bolted the Republican Party as an officer does not speak credibility or trust. His so called “legislative expertise” is also misleading.
I know Mike Cronk and his incredible family. Mike is not a politician. Mike strongly supports a full PFD as written in statute. He is one of us and will fight for conservative values and our way of life we cherish so deeply. Finally I want to make it clear I am writing this letter of concern on my own, having served as a representative and senator over a 10-year period. Thank you for taking my concerns seriously.
Candidates and sitting Democrat politicians in Anchorage are among the many liberal donors to the 2017-2018 campaign of Ethan Berkowitz, the now-disgraced mayor of Anchorage, whose last day is Friday.
While they were donating to Berkowitz, the mayor was finishing up his first term in Anchorage. He went to fundraisers. He spoke at rallies. He was the social justice warrior mayor, the politician who now won’t even answer questions from his friends at the Anchorage Daily News.
And Berkowitz was already deep into a sexting relationship with one reporter, Maria Athens, although he may have been in sexting relationship with at least one other reporter, Must Read Alaska has learned.
There were dozens of naked photos of Berkowitz in Athens’ phone, according to a person who saw them earlier this month. The pictures include those of a well-used pink dildo that was referred to by participants as “PeeEthan.”
The relationship, as explained by Berkowitz, happened “several years ago,” and was just “messaging,” but actually went from at least 2016 to 2017 and possibly later, according to MRAK sources. A private investigator is now on the trail to uncover the actual nature of the relationship. There’s a lot more to it than what people know.
One could say Mayor Berkowitz was in bed with the press that was covering him. As the highest elected Democratic Party official in Alaska, he was on track to run for governor in 2022; “was” is the operative word here.
Although the phone message left by Athens on Berkowitz’ answering machine states emphatically she will kill him and his wife, a threat that is at least a Class C felony, police did not charge her with that crime of terroristic threats. Such a charge would result in Berkowitz being called to the witness stand and having to reveal the nature of their relationship. Even as he steps aside, he’s being protected by the police and district attorneys.
The leading man for the Democrats has thousands in his inner circle who have contributed to his rise to power, but those who are either currently in office or trying for higher office include:
Stephen Trimble, running against Sara Rasmussen for House District 22. He donated $500 to Ethan in 2018. Trimble is running as a fake independent, but with the backing of Democrats.
Suzanne LaFrance, running for House District 28 against Republican James Kaufman, donated $200 in 2017.
Matt Claman, incumbent Democrat for District 21, donated $250 in 2017 and $250 in 2018.
Forrest Dunbar, current Assemblyman running for mayor of Anchorage, donated $50 to Berkowitz in 2017 and $50 in 2018.
Andy Holleman, running against Sen. Josh Revak for Senate Seat M, donated $100 in 2017, and $100 in 2018..
Austin Quinn-Davidson, incoming acting mayor of Anchorage, donated $100 in 2017.
Ivy Spohnholz, incumbent in District 16, donated $100 in 2017.
Liz Snyder, running against Rep. Lance Pruitt for House District 27, gave $50 in 2018.
Harriet Drummond, incumbent for District 18, donated $100 in 2017.
John Weddleton, Assembly member, gave $500 in 2017.
Chris Constant, Assembly member, donated $500 in 2018.
Eric Croft, running for Anchorage mayor, gave $500 in 2017, and $250 in 2018.
Zack Fields, incumbent for District 20, donated $150 in 2017, and $500 in 2018.
Elvi Gray-Jackson, incumbent for Senate Seat I, donated $100 in 2017.
Alyse Galvin donated both in 2017 and 2018. She’s running for Congress.
Pollster Ivan Moore donated $500 in 2018.
Scott Kendall, who heads up the Recall Dunleavy Committee, donated $250 in 2018. His wife donated as well.
The debate between Rep Sarah Vance and Kelly Cooper will be held in Homer on Wednesday at Land’s End at 5:30 pm.
However, the public is not invited.
While the Homer Chamber of Commerce is sponsoring the debate, Cooper asked the organization to disallow the public because of the rising number of COVID cases on the Kenai Peninsula.
Only the media will be allowed, and in Homer, that means liberal media. The announcement was made on Tuesday evening by Cooper.
With millions of dollars of negative advertising now pummeling Sen. Dan Sullivan, the latest news from pollsters has to worry the Alan Gross campaign.
A New York Times poll that skews left has Sullivan up by 8 points. But drilling down into the methodology, the advantage to Sullivan may actually be as high as 12 percent.
While the poll under-sampled the 2016 Hillary Clinton voters by 4 percent, it under sampled Donald Trump voters even more — by 8 percent. The NYT poll found that 32 percent of respondents said they voted for Clinton, and 43 percent said they voted for Trump in 2016.
The actual vote in 2016 was Cinton-36%, Trump-51%, and Gary Johnson, libertarian – 5.9%. That means the poll wasn’t sampling a valid voter base.
The poll also over-sampled women voters. 51 percent of respondents were female, while 48 percent were male. But in Alaska, there are 108 men for every 100 women. Women tend to vote more liberal than men and their answers skew the polls.
This is good news for the Sullivan campaign but also good for that of Congressman Don Young, which this left-leaning poll has up 49-41 over challenger Alyse Galvin.
In the NYT poll, Donald Trump is also winning Alaska 45-39 over Joe Biden.
The poll was conducted with 423 Alaskans between Oct. 9-14, and has a margin of error of 5.7 percent. That margin of error puts Trump, Sullivan, and Young solidly in the lead, even if the poll swings wrong in the challengers’ favor.
Gross had raised $13.9 million through September, while Sullivan has only raised $9.4 million for his race. Independent groups such as the Lincoln Project have spent tens of millions of dollars on attack ads to oust Sullivan. The spending is believed to be 4-to-1 to the Gross advantage.
A pollster hired by the Gross campaign shows him leading Sullivan by one point, 47-46, and shows Trump winning Alaska over Biden by just three points, 49-46.
Patinkin Research of Portland, which polls for liberals and liberal causes, reach 600 respondents; 56 percent were on cell phones, with the remaining 44 percent were on landlines. Little other data was revealed about this poll.
On Monday, ConocoPhillips announced the purchase of Concho Resources, an oil company based in Midland, Texas, with a presence in the Permian Basin.
The response from Alaskans to that news should be: “Uh-oh.”
An all-stock transaction (no cash was required), what makes the Concho acquisition so important to Alaskans?
It’s a shale production company that moves ConocoPhillips, the largest oil producer in Alaska, into position as a much bigger player in the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico, where it costs less than $30 a barrel to supply oil to market.
Alaska’s oil production costs over $38 a barrel to supply.
Concho’s revenue last year was $4.592 billion, and it has over 1,400 employees.
To compare, ConocoPhillips has 1,200 employees in Alaska.
Alaska’s oil fields are competing more than ever with the rest of the United States, where production costs, driven down by innovation, are making Alaska oil plays less attractive.
This also makes Ballot Measure 1 a huge gamble for Alaska. Driving up oil taxes would deepen the state’s economic woes at a time when the economy is already on its knees. It jeopardizes existing and future jobs, new projects and State revenue, economists say.
While some Alaskans think that higher taxes will “stick it to the big oil companies,” the purchase of Concho Resources shows that Alaskans would suffer if oil companies are taxed out of production here.
ConocoPhillips, Hilcorp, and Exxon have more choices than ever around the world, and Alaska has, as a result of innovation and tax structures here and elsewhere, become a smaller oil province with unpredictable tax regime in the resource economy.
If the oil companies won’t be hurt by higher Alaska taxes, who will be? Those who have jobs that are in any manner tied to resources: Small businesses owned by lifelong Alaskans, retailers, pilots, plumbers, landscapers, and restaurant workers.
Also hurt is the State’s bank account. ConocoPhillips paid more than $1 billion in taxes and royalties to the state in 2019. The state could jack up taxes to the detriment of oil production.
In response to soft oil prices, ConocoPhillips announced $400 million in cuts to spending in Alaska in 2020, and by April the company the company told Doyon Drilling that it would put its North Slope drilling rig fleet into hibernation indefinitely. Then it went and made a big stock trade deal for Concho.
All taxes have implications and change the behavior of taxpayers. Ballot Measure 1 may have already scared companies from investing in what is an increasingly expensive place to operate.
According to IHS, an oil analyst company owned by Daniel Yergin, the “Fair Share Act ballot initiative is introduced at a time when the oil industry faces twin crises—the COVID-19 and the oil price crash. While the measure is likely to have a devastating impact to oil and gas investment in the state in the current low oil price environment, the measure is not sustainable even under a long-term base case scenario of $60/bbl.”
Alaska’s current fiscal system is one of the least competitive ones within US and international peer groups in terms of dollars per barrel, for investors, the report continues. “A combination of relatively higher unit costs needed to bring Alaskan North Slope crude oil on stream contribute to lower project profitability compared with Lower 48 and international jurisdictions. The provisions of the Fair Share Act further deteriorate Alaska’s competitive position. The ballot initiative is expected to affect 84% of the current production the state.”
Deeper dive: Readers may download the entire report on the impacts of Ballot Measure 1 at this link:
I was born and raised in Alaska, believing this was an exceptional state that provides unlimited opportunity. Alaska changed the course of my family’s destiny. My parents went from living homeless in a tent to seeing me graduate from Harvard Law School.
Alaska is first in our hearts, but it repeatedly has finished near last in the nation with respect to crime, education, budget, and the economy. If my parents were homeless in Alaska today, I would be less likely to grow up in affordable housing or learn to read, much less attend a prestigious law school.
It is time for Alaska to be first again. That is why I support Dan Sullivan for the U.S. Senate.
Sullivan is bolstering our economy by opening up ANWR for oil and gas development, overturning six decades of restrictions. He also has helped reduce regulations, fought for access to federal lands, and secured about $1.6 billion in funding for military construction across Alaska.
When the COVID pandemic hit us, Senator Sullivan was instrumental in securing billions of dollars of coronavirus relief for Alaskan families, small businesses, Native communities, and front-line healthcare workers.
Senator Sullivan is committed to our safety. He has helped secure $50 Million for public safety in rural Alaska. He has also played a key role in ensuring the investment of $2 trillion to rebuild the strength and power of our U.S. military, which was decimated by the Obama administration.
As the daughter of a long line of military service members, that matters to me, and I know it matters to Alaskans, too. Senator Sullivan is the only member of Congress who continues to be an active service member. He understands what is at stake if Biden wins and tries to reimplement the 25% cut to our military that occurred when he was VP during the Obama administration.
Senator Sullivan has confirmed over 200 judges who believe their role is to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench. Alaska has seen an appalling streak of lawless court rulings lately; we know it is critical we have a Senator who is committed to appointing judges who are dedicated to the rule of law.
Finally, Senator Sullivan understands Alaskans and will continue to serve us well in D.C. He may not have been born here, but he got here as fast as he could! Like many of our military service members, when he was stationed in Alaska 23 years ago, he fell in love with the state we love. He then spent his career as a dedicated public servant, serving Alaskans.
Whether continuing to serve in the armed forces, which he still does today, serving as Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, or serving as Attorney General, Senator Sullivan has demonstrated his commitment to serving all Alaskans, and he is here to stay.
Senator Sullivan will fight for us on Capitol Hill. He will stand firm for all Alaskans and he will help Alaska rise again.
For every Alaskan family to have the same opportunities my family had, and so many other families need and deserve, we need to send Senator Sullivan back to D.C.
The views expressed here are the writer’s in her personal capacity and do not reflect her role as the Commissioner of the Department of Administration.
