Saturday, May 9, 2026
Home Blog Page 306

Tim Barto: Mail-order abortions come with great risk

SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR
-
7
Tim Barto: Mail-order abortions come with great risk

By TIM BARTO

For those of us expecting – or at least hoping – that the 2022 Dobbs decision, which stated there is no constitutional right to kill an unborn child, would quiet the abortion debate and usher in an era of fewer killed babies, we couldn’t have been more wrong.

Among the Left, abortion has gone from a sacrosanct rite to the very burning pillar of fire that guides their political agenda. Okay, perhaps it is secondary to defeating Donald Trump at any cost, but it’s still a beacon that shines brightly among those who never met an abortion they didn’t respect.

Alaska judge says it’s OK for midwives to kill unborn

Abortion was the issue that prevented the predicted “red wave” in the 2022 midterms, and it is being used by Harris/Walz and Democrats throughout the country to embolden their base; and, to their credit, they are using it effectively; not only against pro-life candidates, but through ballot measures and propositions. 

There is, however, something of a wrinkle in their plan. It’s something of a meandering journey, but hang in there for a few paragraphs and we’ll get to it.

Americans United for Life found that people turn away from supporting abortions when they see and understand what actually occurs during the surgical procedure of destroying a baby in utero.

Planned Parenthood also understands this reality, and has shifted their focus from surgical to chemical abortions which, according to the Guttmacher Institute, made up 63% of abortions in the United States in 2023. 

Guttmacher prefers to refer to chemical abortions as medication abortions. Planned Parenthood also refers to the chemical procedures as medication abortions, but they are also bolder and simply refer to the whole thing as the abortion pill.  

The abortion pill procedure usually consists of a pregnant woman taking two pills – mifepristone and misoprostol, although the latter is sometimes used by itself. Mifepristone (formerly known as RU-486) blocks progesterone, the chemical needed to help the baby grow. Misoprostol is then taken within two days, which causes the uterus to cramp and bleed and essentially cause a miscarriage. 

The Planned Parenthood website provides instructions as follows:  

Your doctor or nurse may give you both medicines at the health center. In some states you can do a virtual visit and have the pills mailed to you or pick them up at a local pharmacy. Some states have laws that say you must come to the health center for a separate visit before you get the abortion pills.

The website also offers advice about self-managed abortions, i.e., ending a pregnancy without the help of a doctor or nurse, and provides a link to an entity called “Plan C.”  Clicking on the link brings up a disclaimer in which Planned Parenthood denies any responsibility or endorsement for advice or information provided by other parties. Yet, it still provides the link. 

As if Planned Parenthood’s page wasn’t horrifying enough, Plan C’s website is where things get really ugly . . . and in a straightforward way. It’s dedicated to getting abortion pills into the hands of pregnant women in an expedient manner. There are frequently asked questions, and links to “Abortion pills by mail in every state.”  

Just click on your state and you will be directed to information about potential legal risks as well as how to get the ball rolling on getting those abortion pills:  online clinics that mail pills, websites that sell pills, and in-person clinics. The cheapest options come from the websites that sell pills, where one can get abortion pills for $30 and up (“from India” is noted in parentheses). Going through the online clinics that mail pills link can bring the goods to your mailbox for $150 or less. Going to an in-person clinic reflects a more expensive option at $500 or more. Legal concerns and Medicaid providers are openly identified. 

And there it is. Follow a few links and for as little as $30 bucks, you, too, can get some pills to have an at-home abortion, complete with all the cramps, bleeding, and miscarriages . . . and, according to federal law, it’s illegal.

The Comstock Act of 1873, passed by Congress during the Grant administration, criminalized use of the Postal Service to send obscene materials. Congress later amended and codified the law under 18 U.S.C. 1461, which prohibited the sale of any drug or medicine for causing unlawful abortion. 

Largely ignored during the 49 year reign of Roe v Wade, the Comstock Act has recently become the focus of attention by liberals who fear a Trump administration will use the law to ban the abortion pill and sending and receiving of all manner of materials used in abortion procedures. In December 2002, the Biden/Harris Department of Justice issued an opinion memorandum stating that the mailing of such materials is not prohibited if they are not used unintentionally; and this past June Democrats introduced bills in the U.S. Senate and House to repeal the act.

Abortion advocates argue that the Comstock Act is void because it has not been enforced, but it is still on the books and is still law, and shipping abortifacients to pro-life states is illegal. 

Abortion-by-mail is dangerous to women’s health, and ordering abortion pills without an in-person medical exam is not safe. Even Planned Parenthood provides information that the mifepristone-misoprostol combination is only effective 87 to 98 percent of the time. Taking misoprostol alone, they report, is effective 85 to 95% of the time. 

One can only imagine what happens during those instances when the chemical procedure is not effective, or when a young woman (statistically, 57% of abortions are performed on women in their 20s) is in medical distress, in pain and bleeding profusely. 

The pro-life community is concerned about the health of the mother as well as that of her baby, and that needs to be made known because there is extreme hate and vitriol coming from the pro-abortion crowd who see pro-lifers as anti-women. Concern for the pregnant women goes hand-in-hand with concern for the child she is carrying. 

Tim Barto is a regular contributor to Must Read Alaska, and is vice president of Alaska Family Council, a faith-based policy advocacy group that is unabashedly pro-life.

Who done it: Worst ‘betrayal of trust,’ but investigators didn’t find Supreme Court’s leaker of Dobbs decision
Murkowski decries Roe v. Wade decision

Toth and Mackowiak: CBS refusal to release 60 Minutes’ Harris transcript is indefensible

SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR
-
13
Toth and Mackowiak: CBS refusal to release 60 Minutes’ Harris transcript is indefensible

By MICHAEL TOTH and MATT MACKOWIAK

President Trump’s criticism of the CBS “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris has triggered the predictable legacy media meltdown. It’s unfortunate. Trump and Harris supporters should demand CBS come clean about why the network significantly altered Harris’ responses on the Biden-Harris administration’s relationship with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 

In ordinary times, all honest, professional journalists and specifically media critics would be dissecting the striking lapse in journalistic ethics at CBS. On the Oct. 6 broadcast of “Face the Nation,” the network played an excerpt of the full “60 Minutes” interview that would air on prime time the next day. In the preview, CBS correspondent Bill Whitaker first asks Harris whether the U.S. has any “sway” over Netanyahu, and the vice president responds by mentioning “the aid we have given to Israel,” the threat posed by Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, and the “imperative to do what we can to allow Israel to defend itself.” 

But when “60 Minutes” aired Harris’ answer, the network spliced together a substantially different response: “The work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles.”

The message was clear: no more aid to Israel. No more threats from Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. And instead of the necessity of ensuring Israeli self-defense, viewers get a sound bite about the Biden-Harris administration’s diplomatic efforts. 

It gets worse. In the prime time “60 Minutes” broadcast, CBS removed Harris’ second answer from the preview clip and swapped in a statement the vice president made in response to a different question. In the substitute answer, Harris declares that the Gaza war must end: “We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.”

This tactical move is ethically bankrupt and journalistically indefensible.

The network has disingenuously claimed that the editing was a standard exercise of its authority to trim interviews for time considerations. That rationale might work for the first answer, where CBS trimmed Harris’ four-paragraph answer down to a single sentence, but it completely ignores the second answer substitution, where “60 Minutes” egregiously swapped one single-sentence answer for another. Either way, CBS News would typically post the full interview on their website, as many of their news programs often do. But they didn’t do that here.

Since CBS has declined to fully explain the editing controversy, viewers must speculate why the network substituted a different answer to the same prompt. An obvious possibility is that anti-Israel politics are the real driver here.

Read the CBS statement on its editing decisions surrounding the Harris interview here.

As a result of its selective editing, CBS removed Harris’ statements about Israeli aid and self-defense and replaced another answer with a statement calling for a cease-fire, which Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders oppose. On the same day that CBS aired the edited “60 Minutes” interview, the network also rebuked host Tony Dokoupil for his fair but sharp questioning of author Ta-Nehisi Coates, who compared the treatment of Palestinians in Israel to the treatment of African Americans in the Jim Crow South during a recent “CBS Mornings” interview. To make matters more interesting, all of this is playing out amid Paramount Global’s (CBS’s parent company) pending sale to Skydance, a media production company run by David Ellison, the son of Oracle founder Larry Ellison, who is staunchly pro-Israel and has signaled he’ll implement massive cost cuts at Paramount. 

Instead of searching for answers from CBS, our mainstream media has focused on blasting President Trump, who has called for CBS to lose its broadcasting license. The Washington Post asserted that Trump’s push for CBS to lose its broadcasting rights “evokes government control of media, which is a hallmark of authoritarianism.”

But as Nathan Simonton, one of the five members of the Federal Communications Commission, has pointed out, the FCC “acts on complaints about distortion, not complaints about editorial positions,” and the commissioners have already “contemplated the possibility of distortionary reporting taking place via splicing” in other cases. That’s another reason CBS must come clean and release the full transcript of the Kamala Harris “60 Minutes” interview. Reversing their declining credibility relies on them finally doing the right thing.

Michael Toth is a founding partner of PNT Law based in Austin, TX. 

Matt Mackowiak is president of Potomac Strategy Group, LLC, and has served as a senior communications aide to two U.S. senators and a governor.

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Peltola campaign on notice as Texas AG says a trail of suspicious donations follows ActBlue

SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR
-
12
Peltola campaign on notice as Texas AG says a trail of suspicious donations follows ActBlue

By BETHANY BLANKLEY | THE CENTER SQUARE

A nearly year-long investigation into ActBlue, a Democratic Party online donation platform, alleges a large number of suspicious donations have been made, resulting in Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton petitioning the Federal Election Commission to get involved.

On Monday, Paxton petitioned the FEC to consider implementing new regulations to prevent straw donations from being made on online political fundraising platforms.

Breaking: Peltola’s name and campaign listed in ‘fraudulent donor’ lawsuit filed in Wisconsin

Since launching the investigation, Paxton said it’s been publicly reported that potentially fraudulent transactions have occurred on political committee online platforms.

“Certain platforms appear to facilitate straw donor transactions, where a contributor disguises his identity by attributing his contribution to another, unaware person,” the petition states.

Alleged straw donations are being made through the use of prepaid credit cards, which he says “are a favorite tool of fraudsters.”

ActBlue, the money mule app for Mary Peltola and Democrats, is now under congressional investigation

Paxton’s office launched an investigation into ActBlue in December to determine if the platform’s operations were compliant with all applicable laws. In response to the investigation, Act Blue implemented a new measure in August requiring donors using credit cards to provide “CVV” codes. Paxton says this alone isn’t enough to prevent straw political donations from being made.

The OAG’s investigation says it found a large number of suspicious donations that were made “through obscured identities and untraceable means,” necessitating FEC action.

Through the use of prepaid cards it “appears that straw donations are systematically being made using false identities, through untraceable payment methods,” Paxton said.

Are you being smurfed? Check the list to see if you are a money mule for ActBlue

Texas’ FEC petition includes partially redacted findings from the OAG’s investigation and recommends that the FEC implement regulations to close fundraising loopholes “that jeopardize American election integrity.” The FEC previously considered implementing such regulations, which ActBlue vocally opposed.

ActBlue’s opposition “is no longer tenable” in light of Texas’ investigation, Paxton said. “If not corrected by the FEC, bad actors can – with trivial ease – illegally funnel foreign money into American elections, exceed political contribution limits, and more.”

 “Our investigation into ActBlue has uncovered facts indicating that bad actors can illegally interfere in American elections by disguising political donations,” Paxton said. “It is imperative that the FEC close off the avenues we have identified by which foreign contributions or contributions in excess of legal limits could be unlawfully funneled to political campaigns, bypassing campaign finance regulations and compromising our electoral system. I am calling on the FEC to immediately begin rulemaking to secure our elections from any criminal actors exploiting these vulnerabilities.”

ActBlue says it’s raised more than $15.8 billion online since 2004.

In the third quarter of fiscal 2024, it says “6.9 million unique donors gave over 31 million contributions to 18,396 campaigns and organizations, totaling over $1.5 billion.”

“This quarter was the largest in ActBlue history,” it said.

Donors gave small amounts totaling $4.2 million to pro-abortion organizations in the quarter, a more than 208% increase from Q3 of 2020. They also gave small amounts totaling more than $5 million to pro-gun control groups, a 48% increase from the same period in 2020, it says.

ActBlue notes that 67.4% of all contributions were made with a saved payment method or digital wallet; 71.8% were made from a mobile device, a 14.8% increase from the third fiscal quarter of 2020.

“The record-breaking surge of small-dollar donations in Q3 2024 has clearly demonstrated the power of grassroots energy in shaping America’s political landscape,” ActBlue said. “As the Democratic Party heads into the final stretch of the campaign, these contributions are fueling races across the country, from local contests to the presidential election. Democrats are positioned to fight for victory in November, driven by this commitment and enthusiasm.”

Last month, U.S. House Oversight Chair Rep. James Comer, R-Ky. raised concerns with the Treasury Secretary that ActBlue was being used to evade campaign finance laws, The Center Square reported.

The federal and Texas investigations were launched after U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, demanded answers from the FEC in April 2023 about ActBlue’s “schemes to garner illegal campaign donations.”

Rubio cited reports saying that “numerous individuals, including senior citizens, have purportedly donated to ActBlue thousands of times a year” but many “had no idea that their names and addresses were being used to give thousands of dollars in political donations, with most of these ‘donations’ going to ActBlue. It should come as no surprise that ActBlue serves as a vessel for fraud, considering the intentional lack of security engrained within their donation processes and systems.”

Over the last several months, ActBlue has argued that small donations represent “a new standard for grassroots political engagement. Donors from across the nation showed incredible generosity and a new sense of energy and momentum in electing Democrats up and down the ballot.”

Lines were long for Alaska’s first day of in-person voting, except in weathered-in Fairbanks

Suzanne Downing
-
21
Lines were long for Alaska’s first day of in-person voting, except in weathered-in Fairbanks

At the Gambell Street voting location in Anchorage, the lines were an hour and a half long for much of the day, as Alaskans started going to the polls to vote early in the Nov. 5 General Election.

In downtown Anchorage, the line was an hour long, and in Wasilla, voters said they had never seen a line so long. Voters said the same thing about Soldotna — “Dress warmly. The line is long.”

Make a plan to vote: Early in-person and absentee voting starts Monday in Alaska

In-person voting, including absentee in-person, started in many communities on Monday. Not in Fairbanks, where the roads were treacherous after 9 inches of snow, and then rain made conditions hazardous.

The Fairbanks situation was different, with nine inches of snow and then rain on top of it. Polling was closed, government offices were mostly closed, and schools were closed.

The Fairbanks Airport Police and Fire advised people to stay off the roads:

“We know what you’re thinking…you’re looking at your car and driveway covered with 9 inches of snow and thinking, “Meh – I can do this. It’s not THAT bad…Folks, it’s NOT good! We had 6-9 inches of snow last night and it’s been raining for the last few hours. We know you think you need that bottle of wine and a pack of smokes to get you through your kids being out of school today, but don’t. Just DON’T. Think of it as Mother Nature’s way of telling you today is a good day to quit. Let that New Years resolution start today.”

Photo credit: Fairbanks Police and Fire Department

Voters are choosing their presidential favorite, a new member of Congress and every single House seat in the Alaska Legislature. They’re also voting on whether to raise the minimum wage and keep ranked-choice voting in place in Alaska.

Make a plan to vote: Early in-person and absentee voting starts Monday in Alaska

Confusion, clarity about Dominion voting machines in Kenai Borough

SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR
-
23
Confusion, clarity about Dominion voting machines in Kenai Borough

By PEDRO GONZALEZ

Last year, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough held its first election under Ordinance 22-119, which requires that votes be counted by hand in view of poll watchers. 

The results came in without a hitch. Even though two teams of workers had to be hired to get it done, Mat-Su officials said that it was likely less costly than utilizing voting machines.

The success of that initiative inspired a similar effort to eliminate voting machines in the Kenai Peninsula Borough by a group called Liberty Action. It also resulted in some confusion—then clarity—about how election processes are conducted and changed.

In an email, Duane Edelman, Liberty Action’s Kenai team leader, told Must Read Alaska that this effort is about bringing “safety, integrity, and accuracy back to our local elections.” Edelman testified before the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly in May. He and more than two dozen attendees, many of whom wore orange safety vests, called on officials to revise the way local elections work. Key criticisms centered on the use of machines manufactured by Dominion Voting Systems. 

Last year, Fox News settled a defamation lawsuit for more than $787 million after Dominion accused the network of spreading false claims about its devices after the presidential election in 2020.

When he appeared before the Kenai Peninsula Assembly in May, Edelman asked the body to terminate its “voting agreement with Dominion.” The appeal followed a period during which Edelman said he studied how Mat-Su passed its ordinance. 

In a nutshell, residents had regularly voiced their concerns at borough meetings and then enlisted the help of an assemblyman who sponsored legislation to eliminate electronic voting equipment. Assembly member Ron Bernier, the sponsor, said the initiative was a “reflection of the overwhelming interest for a call for election integrity from the people that have come up and testified at the borough.” 

Edelman said his initial efforts were unsuccessful and suggested that local officials are indifferent toward election integrity concerns.

However, Mayor Peter Micciche told Must Read Alaska that there are misunderstandings at play about how elections are conducted in the Kenai Peninsula Borough.

“We only use paper ballots,” Micciche said over the phone. “We don’t have electronic voting.” Micciche noted that these ballots are then tabulated on a card that can be double-checked and said that he has backed legislation that is consistent with the goals of groups like Liberty Action.

“I passed an ordinance last year that required a higher degree of accountability with more hand counting than they were doing,” Micciche said. 

During the May meeting, Assemblyman Peter Ribbens stated that he felt comfortable with how elections are currently conducted since the Nikiski precinct was one of the hand-counted precincts last year. Assembly member Kelly Cooper shared that she was an election worker and, like Ribbens, felt that the current system involving both hand counts and tabulation is secure.

When asked about criticism that Kenai officials aren’t taking concerned residents seriously, Micciche said that he encouraged them to continue working through the system. 

“They have the right to a citizens’ initiative, and it’s a really great way to measure how the people of the Kenai Peninsula Borough feel about this issue,” he said. “So I’m looking forward to seeing what happens. I assume they could easily gather the signatures.”

Edelman told Must Read Alaska that Liberty Action is preparing to do just that. 

There are other reasons beyond concerns over transparency and accuracy to consider dropping electronic voting equipment. Namely, cutting costs. 

Mat-Su had previously entered into an eight-year agreement with Dominion, leasing several machines for more than $70,000 per year. The cost of hand counting is estimated to be far less. Indeed, the borough anticipates saving money going forward.

Pedro Gonzalez has joined the editorial staff of Must Read Alaska. His success as a journalist includes contributions to Chronicles Magazine, American Greatness, and Newsmax. 

Kenai voters repeal mail-in election that was passed by Borough Assembly

Rick Whitbeck: With two weeks to go, will Alaskans choose a bright energy future?

SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR
-
4
Rick Whitbeck: With two weeks to go, will Alaskans choose a bright energy future?

By RICK WHITBECK

Part of Power The Future’s mission is to expose the outright lunacy of the eco-left. As early voting gets underway across Alaska, it is important to note that energy is on the ballot in 2024, and that candidates’ endorsements matter to the future of the state.

While Power The Future – as a 501(c)4 – doesn’t endorse candidates, we certainly take note of which other organizations do.  What those organizations’ missions and priorities say about their endorsed candidates drives their ongoing mission to move Alaska away from reliable, affordable energy and into risky, higher-cost options.

In the case of the Alaska Center, their slate of statewide endorsed candidates must accept and drive policy (if elected) around very specific goals set by the organization.  In order to even be considered for endorsement, they must acknowledge a number of items, including:

  • Admitting a climate crisis exists, and that the candidate working to end it;
  • Committing to moving Alaska to a 100% clean energy economy by 2050;
  • Promoting “equity” for rural communities most affected by the climate crisis.

Previously, Alaska Center-endorsed candidates have led the way on legislation involving Renewable Portfolio Standards, increasing oil and gas taxes on producers, forcing wind and solar “solutions” into the grid and more.  All of those would damage Alaska’s employment, hurt families across the state, raise rates, threaten future investment, gut the revenues and royalties that fund state and local government, and – most importantly – add risk into the grid, which is currently led by a combination of firm (always-on) energy sources.

As Alaskans go to the polls between now and Nov. 5, look at the endorsements of candidates you are choosing from.  If you see ones that have eco-left-driven support, it might be good to pass them by.

Rick Whitbeck is the Alaska state director for Power The Future and a regular writer at Must Read Alaska.

Rick Whitbeck: If you were in charge for a day, how would you help Alaska’s energy economy?

Breaking: Nick Begich pulls ahead in newest poll

Suzanne Downing
-
15
Breaking: Nick Begich pulls ahead in newest poll

It’s considered the closest congressional race in the nation, but it may not be as close as people think. According to the National Republican Congressional Committee, Republican congressional candidate Nick Begich is poised to unseat Rep. Mary Peltola in November.

Begich surged ahead of Peltola on the first round, with 49.1% of votes compared to 44.5%. On the elimination round, he would win with 52.1% to her 47.9%.

“Nick Begich’s momentum is undeniable. Alaskans are fed up with Mary Peltola enabling Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and extreme Democrats’ failed agenda,” said NRCC spokesman Ben Petersen.

New poll: Begich has pulled ahead of Peltola
The momentum is continuing as the topic of natural resources comes to the forefront this week. Chairman of House Natural Resources Committee Rep. Bruce Westerman is flying to Anchorage this week for several events with Nick Begich, including a Thursday evening campaign fundraiser.

Peltola was caught saying last week that she would gladly give up her seat on the House Natural Resources Committee if she could get on the Appropriations Committee, an unlikely seat for someone who is not in the majority and who has only served in office for two years. She spoke those words during the ConocoPhillips candidate forum, even though she has told the public that her biggest concern is fish.

Although she sits on Natural Resources, her own committee chairman is now campaigning against her — and coming to Alaska to do so.

The latest poll was conducted by Cygnal on Oct. 14-16 among 400 likely general election voters, and has a 4.86% margin of error.

Early voting started Monday, Oct. 21, at polling locations around Alaska for the election that ends on Nov. 5 at 8 p.m. Details below:

Make a plan to vote: Early in-person and absentee voting starts Monday in Alaska

Craig Campbell: Ranked-choice was a card-up-the-sleeve trick on Alaskans. It’s time to end it

SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR
-
33
Craig Campbell: Ranked-choice was a card-up-the-sleeve trick on Alaskans. It’s time to end it

By CRAIG CAMPBELL

In just two weeks we have the opportunity to repeal Ranked Choice Voting, known as RCV.  

In 2020, RCV proponents employed a magician’s “sleight of hand” trick; campaigning on eliminating dark money from Alaska and rarely mentioning RCV in order to push Ballot Measure 2.  

That year, Ballot Measure 2 barely passed with just 50.55% in favor, and 49.45% opposed, ushering RCV into Alaska with the slimmest of majorities.  

This year we have the chance to repeal RCV and return our state to its former traditional election process. However, voters are facing an unprecedented push by No on 2 to defeat this grassroots initiative, and the No on 2 campaign has over $12.3 million to flood the airways with deceptive advertising.  

Take, for example, the advertisement where No on 2, which is funded by out-of-state organizations, claims that if RCV is repealed military personnel would be forced to join a political party to participate in the election process. 

Balderdash! Military members never had to join a political party to vote in Alaska’s primary or general elections, and would not after RCV is repealed either. 

While the Republican Party of Alaska had a partially closed primary process prior to 2020, those who did not affiliate themselves with a different political party had the ability to vote in the Republican primary. Alternatively, they had the option to vote using the non-Republican ballot. Claiming military members had to choose a party to be able to vote is frankly dishonest, and disingenuous to service members and veterans. The real issue is whether RCV should be repealed.

So why is the No on 2 campaign only focused on the open primary process, when RCV is the real issue? The fact is they know most Alaskans do not support RCV because it convolutes the election process and does not ensure the winner represents who the majority favors.  

Their ads claim that under the current system people can vote for the person they believe is the best candidate in the primary process. Left unsaid is the fact that during the general election, under RCV, voters rank four candidates, not one.  That results in a complicated process, which in 2022 elected Democrat Mary Peltola to Congress when the primary had the two Republicans collectively garner more votes than she did. So much for “One Person, One Vote.” 

An open primary is not the main objective of No on 2.  Their goal is to preserve their holy grail: RCV.  In a democratic society, we should be allowed to separately vote on different issues. Combining two disrelated topics creates a “Hobson’s Choice” for voters. A person may like one issue but not the other, but to get the issue they favor passed, they must approve the issue they do not support. That’s election manipulation at its finest and No on 2 is a master at this fraudulent deceptive maneuver.

There is a simple solution to this problem: Vote Yes on Ballot Measure 2 and repeal RCV.  Bring back election integrity to Alaska and get rid of the RCV election scheme. Then, either the Legislature or a citizen’s initiative can address the open primary issue as a single topic. 

Remember, RCV resulted in a convicted felon in a New York prison to be on our ballot for congress next month.  The absurdity of this is outrageous. It’s time to terminate this failed RCV experiment.  Vote Yes on Ballot Measure 2 to repeal RCV. 

Craig E. Campbell served on the Anchorage Assembly between 1986 and 1995 and later as Alaska’s Tenth Lieutenant Governor.  He was the previous Chief Executive Officer and President for Alaska Aerospace Corporation.  He retired from the Alaska National Guard as Lieutenant General (AKNG) and holds the concurrent retired Federal rank of Major General (USAF).

Craig Campbell: How Jared Goecker will win Eagle River/Chugiak Senate District L

 

Laura Antonsen: False nonpartisanship in partisan politics undermines voter trust

SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR
-
10
Laura Antonsen: False nonpartisanship in partisan politics undermines voter trust

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.

1...305306307...1,781Page 306 of 1,781

About us

Must Read Alaska is news of people, politics, policy, culture, and happenings in Alaska.

Contact
4021 West Hill Road,
Homer, AK 99603
[email protected]

The latest

Alaska Legend John Sturgeon Testifies in Support of AG Stephen Cox

Politics 0
During Attorney General Stephen Cox's confirmation hearing before the...

Newly Released Confidential Documents Show Biden-Era FDA Officials Ignoring Covid-19 Vaccine Safety Warnings

Politics 0
Previously confidential email exchanges have now been authorized for...

Opinion: Support for HB 271 – Keeping Alaska’s Kitchen Lights On

Politics 1
Cook Inlet natural gas is the most valuable resource we...

© Must Read Alaska