The Alaska Motor Inn, once a symbol of disrepair and mischief in downtown Fairbanks, has finally been torn down after a successful, community-driven effort to clean up the area. The old motel, which had become low-income housing, was a frequent target of vandalism, graffiti, arson, and general chaos caused by vagrants and the homeless. As its condition deteriorated, the property became a notorious eyesore, frustrating local businesses and residents alike.
But this month, that changed, thanks to the leadership of Republican Mayor David Pruhs, who made it a priority to clean up Fairbanks. Determined to take swift action, Mayor Pruhs pushed through all the bureaucratic red tape to ensure that the property was sold and the derelict building removed. His efforts resulted in a revitalization project that will transform the existing structure into a beautiful, multi-use facility.
The mayor worked closely with the property owner and local businesses to make the clean-up a reality. In a show of local collaboration, Fairbanks-based contractor Jewel Isaac, LLC was brought on to manage the demolition and oversee the remodeling project. The company, alongside its subcontractors Worry Free, Paragon Plumbing, and Bright Electric, completed the demolition of the old building in just one week.
“This is a big win for Fairbanks,” Mayor Pruhs said. “We’ve taken a nuisance property that was attracting crime and turned it into an opportunity for growth. I’m proud of the work we’ve done together.”
The Alaska Motor Inn project is not only a testament to Mayor Pruhs’ commitment to cleaning up Fairbanks but also a success story of teamwork between property owners, local businesses, and contractors. The new three-story structure is slated to become a modern, multi-use space, bringing new energy to downtown Fairbanks.
With this successful project in the books, residents are hopeful for the future of Fairbanks as a safer, cleaner, and more vibrant community.
Seth Church is the owner of Jewel Isaac, LLC in Fairbanks.
Alaska’s abundance of seafood allows us to anchor our cuisine around salmon, halibut, crab, and shellfish caught in our pristine waters. Yet, we frequently miss opportunities to include the savory umami flavor that seaweed offers to satiate and nourish the body.
The Gulf of Alaska is home to thousands of species of seaweed, many of which are edible. Some of the most common edible seaweeds along our coastline include red ribbon seaweed/dulce (Palmaria mollis), black seaweed/nori (Porphyra), and popweed/rockweed (Fucus). Large brown seaweeds are known as kelp with numerous species that are abundant in our region, including bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana), giant kelp (Macrocystis), sugar kelp (Saccharina latissimi), split kelp (Saccharina groenlandica), winged kelp (Alaria marginata), and five-ribbed kelp (Costaria costata).
Photos and more information on common species of seaweed are available by clicking on this link:Seaweeds of Alaska
A guidebook with information on our region’s seaweeds has made foraging easier. Dolly Garza, who was with the University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska Sea Grant College Program, authored “Common Edible Seaweeds in the Gulf of Alaska,” which is now in its second edition. With extensive instructions on how to identify, gather, process, and prepare seaweed, as well as recipes, it has become the de facto standard for seaweed foraging in Alaska.
The guidebook is available on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s website in the NOAA Institutional Repository and on the Oceans Alaska website at this link:Common Edible Seaweeds in the Gulf of Alaska.
Subsistence seaweed collection usually occurs in the spring and summer along the coastline during low tides. However, you can gather some species, like bull kelp and sugar kelp, throughout the summer and into the autumn.
The edible kelp species are among the most commonly gathered seaweeds. You can easily process kelp for long-term storage by hanging it on a line or laying it out on a sheet to dry. As the kelp dries, the salts and/or sugars may turn into a powdery white coating on the blades. This may look disconcerting, but it is a normal part of the edible product. Storage of dried seaweed in an airtight container or zippered plastic bags allows for use up to a year later.
Dried kelp with powdery residue of sea salt.
Edible seaweed lends itself nicely to a wide range of culinary applications. Similar to kale chips, you can transform fresh kelp into crispy snacks by heating the strips in a frying pan with avocado oil. Or if you prefer an oil-free chip, you can dry fresh seaweed in a low oven from 150 to 200 degrees until the kelp is crisp. There are numerous other ways to enjoy kelp, such as incorporating it into a salad, pairing it with seafood, using it as a vegetable substitute in various dishes, or adding it for umami essence to enhance pasta, stir-fry, and chowders.
Bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) is one of the largest brown kelp species in the North Pacific and a popular foraging species in Southeast Alaska. People commonly use skiffs for collection because they thrive in deeper water. For optimal results, harvest it in late spring or early summer, but you can gather it until the fall.
Pickles, chutneys, salsas, and relish are made from the thicker, hollow stipe (stem) portions of bull kelp while they are still fresh. The stipe is sliced and processed into pickles in a manner similar to pickling cucumbers. Chutney, salsa, and relish are made by chopping the stipe and then blending it with additional ingredients and seasoning. Then, it is canned for long-term storage.
Mark Stopha forages for bull kelp off of Prince of Wales Island. While many other seaweeds are available in the region, bull kelp is his preferred species to harvest. He has stated that he targets bull kelp because he can sustainably harvest a 5-gallon bucket of bull kelp stipes in a few minutes, which provides enough product to meet his subsistence needs for the year. He processes it into kelp salsa and kelp relish, then preserves it in a canner for extended storage.
The recipe for Mark’s Bull Kelp Relish is at the end of this post.
Chopped bull kelp stipes. Mark Stopha photo.
The State of Alaska’s website provides information on harvesting seaweed in Alaska. On the state’s site it is stated that, “Along most of Alaska’s coastline it’s okay to harvest kelp for personal, noncommercial use… However, always check with your regional office to make sure there are not any emergency closures in your area.”
Foragers are not the only ones who can enjoy the umami taste sensations of our coast. Alaska-sourced commercial products are a wonderful option for those who lack the enthusiasm or ability to gather seaweed.
Alaska’s commercial seaweed industry is still in its infancy, but efforts are underway to expand commercially available kelp products.
Alaska is spearheading the expansion of mariculture, including seaweed, by providing financial support to private businesses through a program designed to encourage investment in the industry. The State of Alaska, through the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, allocated $5 million to the Alaska Mariculture Alliance in 2022 to administer a Mariculture Incentive Grant Program. Shellfish, seaweed, hatchery, and mariculture processing enterprises can receive up to $150,000 per award cycle from this program.
The Alaska Mariculture Alliance’s executive director, Jason Lessard, believes that the incentive grants will significantly expand the state’s mariculture sector. “AMA is proud to partner with the State for this unique program, which will ultimately translate into about $9 million of investment in Alaska Mariculture,” Lessard stated. He added that they are “only part way through the Round One grant period and already starting to see tangible improvements in operations across the state. This grant will have transformational impacts on Alaska Mariculture for years to come.”
On October 15th, the Alaska Mariculture Alliance announced that they will accept applications for Round 2 of the Mariculture Incentive Grant Program until Dec. 15. To learn more about the grants available to mariculture firms, click on this link: AMA Grant Round Two
There are already a small number of kelp farms producing for the commercial market.
Seagrove Kelp cultivates ribbon kelp, commonly referred to as winged kelp (Alaria marginata), at its Doyle Bay plant on Prince of Wales Island. Consumers in Alaska and Washington State can purchase their products in retail outlets in 1-pound frozen packets. They also supply kelp to commercial processors who produce finished seaweed products.
Alaska Shellfish Farms, Halibut Cove, Alaska
Alaska Shellfish Farms is a family-run mariculture enterprise located in Halibut Cove on the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska, owned and operated by Weatherly and Greg Bates. They cultivate oysters, mussels, and kelp for the consumer market. Kachemak Bay’s glacier-fed water nurtures the oysters for three to four years. According to Weatherly, the chilly waters and shellfish suspension lines create ideal conditions for the growth of five ribbed/costaria kelp (Costaria costata) and red ribbon/dulse (Palmaria mollis) species. They harvest the kelp as a sustainable byproduct of their shellfish farm.
The kelp is packaged for sale in quart-sized mylar bags that hold one ounce of dried product. The Costaria Kelp andDulse easily rehydrates, making it suitable for a wide range of culinary applications. Weatherly describes kelp as a nutrient-dense superfood that her family enjoys with their meals on a regular basis. Her favorite way to eat the costaria kelp is in a marinated seaweed salad with rice vinegar, sesame oil, and seasonings. The recipe she uses elevates the kelp’s umami flavor to perfection, leaving you wanting more after just one taste. This recipe is undoubtedly a must-try, even if you are new to adding seaweed to your meals.
Below is the recipe Weatherly uses for her Kelp Salad.
Another option for including seaweed with your meals is to purchase finished products made for the consumer retail market. A few companies are making seaweed-based finished goods available in gift shops and supermarkets. Two companies that use seaweed in their products include Barnacle Foods of Juneau and Foraged & Found of Ketchikan. Both enterprises incorporate Alaska-sourced kelp into their finished products, including kelp pickles, salsa, and more.
Seaweed is more than just a wrap for sushi. It is a nutrient-rich and adaptable food that brings forth the flavors and textures from the coast to tantalize the palate with its umami essence. It is a natural complement to Alaska’s seafood, satiating on its own as pickles, chips, or salad and a healthy vegetable alternative in a variety of dishes.
Alaskans can obtain seaweed by foraging, purchasing frozen or dried kelp, or buying finished products. Regardless of how it finds its way to your table, you can enjoy our region’s unique offerings and savor the local flavor.
Costaria kelp salad
Kelp Salad
Recipe provided by Weatherly Bates
1 ounce dried kelp
1 ½ tablespoons rice vinegar
1 tablespoon mirin sweet cooking rice wine
3 tablespoons sesame oil
1 ½ tablespoons soy sauce
¼ teaspoon ginger powder
¼ teaspoon garlic powder
2 tablespoons sesame seeds
¼ teaspoon chili flakes
Optional topping with additional sesame seeds
Rehydrate kelp in fresh water for 10 minutes, drain, cut into thin strips
Combine ingredients to make a sauce, toss with seaweed, and marinate for at least 30 minutes (up to 2 days)
Enjoy
Makes 4 servings.
Bull kelp relish. Mark Stopha photo.
Bull Kelp Relish
Recipe provided by Mark Stopha
18 cups ground bull kelp stipe*
1 medium large green cabbage
1 medium red cabbage
6 white onions
18 carrots (2 bags)
2 green peppers
3 cups sugar
8 cups white vinegar
2 tablespoon tumeric
4 tablespoon mustard seed powder
Rinse bull kelp in fresh water.
Chop or grind kelp, cabbages, onions, carrots, and peppers.
Mix all ingredients in a large stockpot and simmer for 2 hours.
Fill prepared jars for canning.
Heat in a boiling water bath for 10 minutes, or as directed by your canning instruction book ensuring that all safe canning guidelines are followed.
Makes approximately 60 half pint jars.
*Mark’s Tip: “Instead of using a food processor, you can use a food grinder for the kelp and all the vegetables. It comes out great as all the items are the same size coming out of the grinder.”
Brenda Josephson is a Haines resident. She is an accounting and tax professional, real estate agent, professionally trained chef, and advocate for good governance. She spends her time fishing, foraging, and savoring Alaska’s abundance of natural and wild foods with her family.
Vaccine Injury Awareness Month brings an increased focus on the fact that all vaccines come with possible side effects — some of which are deadly.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, signed into law Nov. 14, 1986 by President Ronald Reagan, was designed to provide information concerning the sometimes ill effects of vaccines, so that a change of course can occur if the side effects are too many, too serious, or more unsafe than beneficial.
The database the act created — Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System — could provide real time information that would help in making decisions for yourself or your children. Sadly, only about 10% of all side effects get entered into the database, as it is a voluntary system. And compensations from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program are rare and take enormous effort, and usually require the help of a lawyer experienced in the field. If you have serious side effects, at least ask your doctor to submit a report to the database. If he or she refuses, you may file one yourself at this VAERS link.
What great timing for our Alaska Covid Alliance conference scheduled for Oct. 26, 2024, at the Egan Center in Anchorage from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
We have a powerful lineup of speakers, some of whom will provide you information not always readily available to the general population about certain vaccine side effects, information the mainstream media is reluctant to tell.
Three of our 10 speakers include:
Lt. Col. Dr. Theresa Long, U.S. Army, a Department of Defense whistleblower and Army flight surgeon, who will be addressing the effect of the Covid shot on perfectly healthy troops.
Dr. Brian Hooker, the chief scientist from the Children’s Health Defense, who will speak on vaccine injuries particularly with our children.
Dr. Joel Wallskog, who will discuss people who have suffered vaccine injuries from the Covid jab. Wallskog speaks from experience, having suffered from the Covid jab, after which he founded the React19 organization to provide science-based support for those suffering from long-term Covid vaccine effects.
It is also perfect timing to have October as Vaccine Injury Awareness Month at the same time the push for Covid and flu shots is being ramped up. You can’t miss the public service announcements heard on television and even in your local grocery store or pharmacy..
What is not explained in these public health commercials and advisories is details about effectiveness or possible side-effects. Instead, they continue to tug on your heartstrings and tell you about killing grandma if you don’t comply and get your shots.
The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which recommends vaccines, is still pushing annual Covid jabs for almost all Americans, even while acknowledging the vaccines offer only a small boost in immunity that lasts for just a couple of months, given that most people have acquired immunity from infection or multiple vaccine doses.
According to Johns Hopkins University, “Studies suggest that COVID-19 vaccines are most effective during the first three months after vaccination.” The key word here is “suggest.”
It may hardly seem worthwhile to take it when you consider all the side-effects that can occur and the efficacy of the Covid shot.
As for the flu shot, the CDC said it doesn’t expect this year’s to be as effective as it has been in the past, citing information from South America, where the flu happens earlier than here. The CDC says the shot offers “34% efficacy against hospitalization, compared to 50% last year.”
If it is effective 34% of the time in preventing hospitalization,that means it’s about 20 to 25% effective at protecting you from the flu, according to Dr. Meryl Nass. The bottom line would be that based on the risk of side-effects from the shot versus the benefits, you may want to forego it.
Is there any good news on the vaccine front? I was pleased to see the FDA put a hold on the application for the Novavax combo flu/covid shot due to one person suffering nerve damage from the shot. Immediately upon stating its research was put on hold, Novavax stock dropped nearly 20%.
Wow! One person injured. That’s the good news. They should regroup and rethink when a very serious side-effect occurs. They might have saved a lot of people from serious side effects from the Covid shot, had they considered all the ill effects people experienced, and some experience even today. But wait: That would have affected the shareholders. How could Big Pharma survive?
Just follow the money. It’s never really been about your health.
And remember, this month is Vaccine Injury Month. Think about what shots you want to take or not take. After all, it is all about personal freedom. You decide for yourself what’s best for you.
Do you want to learn more and protect yourself and your children?
The lineup of speakers at the Oct. 26 conference in Anchorage include:
Dr Meryl Nass, speaking on the World Health Organization and its threat to our national sovereignty. She will also delve into details on the newest “plandemic” in the making and discuss how the global elites plan to disrupt your food supply.
Lt. Col. Dr. Theresa Long, a whistleblower who testified before Congress, will address military vaccine issues and injury.
Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, cofounder of “DoNoHarm,” will speak on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in medical schools, and how this policy has affected what new doctors are learning or not learning in their educational process.
Dr. Pam Popper will address “Using the Courts to Restore Our Right,” in which she will discuss vaccine lawsuits that have been filed and what success we have had in this area.
Dr. Joel Wallskog, co-founder of React19, will recount his own vaccine injury, and unpack what avenues are open to others who were injured by this vaccine.
Dr. Ryan Cole, who had his medical license restricted in the state of Washington for prescribing Ivermectin to Covid patients via telemedicine, will speak about turbo cancers that have occurred since the start of the Covid pandemic.
Dr. James Lindsay will speak about culture wars and their effect on our children.
Dr. Peter Breggin will speak on “Thinning the Herd. The pandemic as a global Milgram experiment.”
Our own Dr. Ilona Farr will speak on “Finding Solutions To Treat Health Problems Caused by Covid-19.”
Here’s your opportunity to learn more at our “Alaskans 4 Personal Freedom” conference on Oct. 26 at the Egan Conference Center in Anchorage.
You can even Zoom in from the comfort of your home and have popcorn too!
Linda Boyle, RN, MSN, DM, was formerly the chief nurse for the 3rd Medical Group, JBER, and was the interim director of the Alaska VA. Most recently, she served as Director for Central Alabama VA Healthcare System. She is the director of the Alaska Covid Alliance.
Anchorage School Superintendent Jharrett Bryantt said the district will release an initial list of recommended schools for closing, combining, or repurposing on Nov. 1.
From Nov. 12-18, the district will host a series of community conversations where the public can learn more, ask questions, and offer feedback.
“We will also engage the Superintendent Advisory Committees during a special Multicultural Education Concerns Advisory Committee (MECAC) meeting for additional dialogue and feedback,” Bryantt said.
“For our valued employees, I want to assure you that we will prioritize your preferences for school placement if you are affected by rightsizing. Following Board approval of a Rightsizing plan, our Talent Management team will work closely with staff to assist with plans to ensure a smooth transition to your new campus,” the superintendent said.
Anchorage is suffering from a loss of students, in part because families have opted for home schooling or private schools, or have moved to the MatSu Valley, where the perception is that schools are performing better than in Anchorage. In addition, Anchorage residents of childbearing age are having fewer children, if any.
Anchorage’s population has been shrinking for a decade. While the overall population in Alaska has grown 2.7% from 2010 to 2020, Anchorage Municipality’s population shrank 2.3%.
The goal of downsizing the overall footprint of the Anchorage schools has been under way on since April, with several school board meetings, community meetings and surveys.
Alaska Survey Research’s poll from Oct 8-9 shows that Donald Trump could win Alaska with as much as 54.1% of the vote — at least among super-voters, specifically those most likely to actually vote by Nov. 5.
Trump won Alaska in 2016 with 51.28% of the vote, and again in 2020 with 52.83% of the vote. This could be his best year yet for the Alaska voters, if the recent poll is any gauge.
The survey question to a group of super-voters was: If the November 2024 general election for US President was held today, for whom would you vote?
If Robert F. Kennedy Jr. advanced to the elimination round, the results were:
Kamala Harris: 42.9%
Donald Trump 49.8%
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: 7.4%
Then for the second elimination round in the ranked-choice voting scheme, the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. voters picked Trump over Harris and the final result was:
Harris: 45.9%
Trump: 54.1%
Of course, super-voters are not the only ones who will cast their ballots, and so the favorability ratings of the candidates among all likely voters (including but not just super-voters) gives another perspective.
In a question to 1,434 panelists, ASR asked was if they had a positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative or negative (or no view) of Trump. Trump is overall seen slightly negatively by the participants in Alaska. But when it came time to vote, they still picked him over Harris, who Alaska voters see even more negatively.
Harris was seen somewhat negatively by 12.2% She was seen very negatively by 45.2%, for a total of 67.4% negative.
Only 10.3% of Alaskans who took the survey see Harris very positively, and 18.2% see her somewhat positively, for a total of 28.5% positive. Another 3.5% had no opinion of her at all.
When it comes to rating positive and negative for Trump, feelings were strong:
Trump was seen very negatively by 43.1% and somewhat negatively by 7.9%, for 49% total in the negative column. He did better than Harris in this category.
Trump was rated very positively by 27.5% and somewhat positively by 18.8%, for a total positive of 46.3%. He also did better than Harris in this category.
Trump is in better shape going into the election in Alaska than than Harris, according to these results.
An interesting side note on the survey is that Alaska Survey Research shows Harris winning in Southeast Alaska (Harris – 55.8% to Trump – 44.2%); winning in rural Alaska (Harris – 52.1% to Trump – 47.9%); losing in Southcentral Alaska (Harris – 30.5% to Trump – 69.5%); winning in Anchorage (Harris – 51.8% to Trump – 48.2%); and losing in Fairbanks (Harris – 48.9% to Trump – 51.1%).
The gender breakdown of the positive and negative opinions of Harris, Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., JD Vance, and Tim Walz were telling:
Men:
Trump was seen positively by 50.9% and negatively by 47%.
Harris was seen positively by 41.5% and negatively by 53.3%.
Kennedy Jr. was seen positively by 43% and negatively by 46.1%.
Vance was seen positively by 45.8% and negatively by 42.4%
Walz was seen positively by 36.4% and negatively by 49%.
Women:
Trump was seen positively by 41.9% and negatively by 54.6%.
Harris was seen positively by 41.5% and negatively by 53.3%.
Kennedy Jr. was seen positively by 37.7% and negatively by 36.4%.
Vance was seen positively by 34% and negatively by 41.2%.
Walz was seen positively by 34.9% and negatively by 32.1%.
For people who chose “other” as a gender:
Trump was seen positively by 14.8% and negatively by 85.2%.
Harris was seen positively by 63.5% and negatively by 36.5%.
Kennedy Jr. was seen positively by 4.7% (not a typo) and negatively by 57.5%.
Vance was seen positively by 4.7% and negatively by 77.4%.
Walz was seen positively by 49.3% and negatively by 23.7%.
The “other” gender totaled just 1.7% of the poll, only about 24 people. Sample sizes this small are difficult to trust.
Important to the survey context is that in 2020, Alaska Survey Research found in its Oct. 6 poll of 676 likely voters that 46% were likely to vote for Biden and 50% said they would pick Trump. That was close but Trump outperformed in the election in Alaska. He won Alaska with nearly 53% of the vote that year, while Biden received less than 43% of the Alaskan vote.
The Alaska Survey Research polls typically list to the left. This particular poll appears to lean heavily toward college-educated Alaskans, which would skew the results toward the liberal side.
When I listen to my constituents, common concerns rise to the surface. People care about their daughters having a fair chance in sports. They worry about their kids in failing schools. They’re concerned about increasing taxes and how to survive in this economy. Curiously, they love the idea of ending daylight savings time.
And they overwhelmingly hate ranked-choice voting.
Presented as an innovative new voting method that would save us all from our two-party duopoly, dark Outside money flooded into our state to deceive voters in 2020, inflicting this disastrous experiment upon us.
According to its proponents, RCV was intended to increase voter participation and reduce polarization by allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference. Even if implemented with good intentions, which I doubt, ranked-choice voting has had far-reaching consequences in Alaska, leading to confusion, voter fatigue, and the disenfranchisement of marginalized communities.
In the aftermath, many Alaskans feel disillusioned. A system that was sold to simplify voting has, in reality, made it more confusing and complicated.
For example, in the 2022 elections, countless ballots were rejected due to errors in the ranking process, with voters either misunderstanding how to rank candidates or not ranking enough.
In rural areas, where voters have limited access to voter education, the confusion was even more profound. Remote communities, in particular, struggled with the system, due in part to language barriers. Reports surfaced of voters being confused how to properly rank candidates. Some voters mistakenly believed their vote would only count for their first choice, while others didn’t fully understand that ranking fewer candidates could influence the outcome if their top choice was eliminated early. Confused voters are more likely to make errors that invalidate their ballots or prevent their true preferences from being counted, effectively disenfranchising them.
Since ballots with fewer ranked preferences are exhausted as an election goes through multiple rounds of eliminations, voters who rank more candidates essentially have more power.
And for a voter to feel confident in their rankings, they must spend even more time gathering enough information about candidates to form an opinion, sometimes up to 4 candidates, or an endless number in the presidential race. This creates an elite group of voters with time and access to information and contributes to voter fatigue. Voter fatigue discourages people from voting at all.
When one person has one vote, the outcome of the election clearly represents the will of the people. Ranked voting and jungle primaries reduce voter confidence. The outcomes are convoluted, lack transparency, and do not ensure that our representatives have our support.
As clearly demonstrated when Mary Peltola won the first RCV election, in Round 1 of counting, nearly 51% of the people did not align with her values, and yet she is who we ultimately sent to represent our state as a whole in Congress. This large-scale misrepresentation feels deceitful and turns voters away. What’s worse, ballots are easily cast out, because everything must be tabulated by specialized machines to track the complicated process. Voters end up wondering why they should even bother.
Misrepresentation seems to be the theme, as promises that Ranked Choice Voting would put an end to Outside money influencing our elections fall flat. Why is there so much interest for outside organizations to dump money into our elections?
Born of this frustration and voter regret, Ballot Measure 2 this year seeks to repeal Ranked Choice Voting and return us to our previous foolproof system—one person, one vote. But now, dark money is at it again, with opponents of Ballot Measure 2 outspending supporters by nearly $8 million, flooding the airwaves with misleading advertisements about the supposed benefits of RCV.
As if the confusion surrounding Ranked Choice Voting wasn’t bad enough, the opposition to Ballot Measure 2 is now spreading blatant falsehoods in their advertisements, adding yet another layer of confusion for voters.
One of the most egregious claims is that if Ballot Measure 2 passes, military personnel and veterans will be forced to register with a political party in order to vote. This is simply untrue and a direct attempt to scare voters into opposing a measure that would return fairness and simplicity to our elections. These political wolves should be ashamed of themselves. Their lies are a stain on our right to vote, a right that was purchased with the blood of the very people at the center of their deception.
The language of Ballot Measure 2 is crystal clear: our elections would return to the way they were before Ranked Choice Voting, and that has never required Alaskans to register with a political party to vote. Alaska has a long history of open primaries, where any voter—whether registered as an independent, non-partisan, or undecided—can choose to vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary. This has been the case for decades, and nothing in Ballot Measure 2 changes that.
The opposition’s strategy is to confuse voters, falsely implying that a repeal of Ranked Choice Voting would take away their rights. This is a tactic of desperation, using outright lies to keep a flawed system in place. In truth, returning to a simple, one-person-one-vote system would only bring back the clarity and fairness that Alaskans deserve.
Though the system played to their advantage in 2022, even Democrats are worried about the outcome this time, as they panic to remove an incarcerated felon from the ballot. They seem to be uncomfortable with the shoe on the other foot.
We may be up against a Goliath of outside money and political schemes, but I have faith that our communities have unmasked this wolf in sheep’s clothing, and we will successfully repeal the disastrous Ranked Choice Voting.
The word on the streets is a resounding “Yes!” Vote YES on Ballot measure 2! One person, One vote.
Rep. Jamie Allard serves Chugiak-Eagle River District 23 in the Alaska Legislature.
The No on 2 group has nearly $12.3 million in the bank to try to convince Alaskans to vote no on Ballot Measure 2, and thus keep ranked-choice voting in Alaska.
Voting yes would return voting to its previous, normal procedures.
The advertising is relentless in Alaska in the weeks leading up to the election, in part because the polling shows that Alaskans want to go back to regular voting. The “No on 2” campaign has more money than any candidate running for office in Alaska. Who is actually funding all these “No on 2: ads?
Here are some of the biggest contributors to No on 2:
$4,400,000: Article IV, a secretive group out of Arlington, Virginia that has associates of John Arnold (Enron) on its board. Arnold is the Texas billionaire who was one of the biggest funders of the original ballot measure that brought ranked-choice voting to Alaska in 2020. This group’s funding sources are secretive. This campaign donation was made in October.
Article IV has made ranked-choice voting one of its priorities, as it is a mission of Arnold Ventures. In 2022, it gave a $400,000 grant to Utah Ranked Choice Voting Action and $342,000 to Oregon Ranked Choice Voting Advocates, as well as others.
What is known is that some of its money comes through the Arabella Advisors network, including the Hopewell Fund, which has funded liberal causes in Alaska.
The executive director of Article IV is George Wellde, who was the vice chairman of the Securities Division at Goldman, Sachs & Co. from 2005-2008. Sam Mar, employed by Arnold Ventures, is a director and secretary of the board of Article IV.
Article IV in 2022 made a grant to the Alaska League of Women Voters in Anchorage. The League of Women Voters produces official voter guides for the Municipality of Anchorage and a $7,500 grant is a large grant for the organization. The group also does election monitoring. The Alaska League of Women Voters opposes Ballot Measure 2 in its official statement on its website.
Article IV grant to Alaska League of Women Voters, from IRS 990 form. After this grant, the League of Women Voters took a position against Ballot Measure 2.
$2,000,000: Act Now Initiative, of Houston. The Act Now Initiative is another spoke of the John and Laura Arnold network. Arnold was a hedge fund trader with Enron who now funds ranked-choice voting. Key word: Arnold Ventures.
$20,000: A4, the same group as Article IV above out of Arlington, Virginia. This donation was a non-monetary contribution of work by subcontractor Objective First Communications LLC, of Atlanta, Ga. Donation reported in September.
$2,000,000:Unite America PAC: Another one of the promoters of ranked-choice voting. Unite America is associated with Kathryn Murdoch, one of the funders of ranked-choice voting in Alaska in 2020. Reported in August.
$28,250: Unite America PAC, another one of the promoters of ranked-choice voting. Unite America is associated with Kathryn Murdoch, another one of the funders of ranked-choice voting in Alaska in 2020. Here’s where it gets its money. Donation reported in September.
$10,000: Unite America PAC non-monetary. Reported in August.
$2,000,000: Unite America PAC, see above. Reported in August.
$220,000: Peter Kelly, of Mill Valley, Calif. Donation was reported in September.
$220,000: Robert Small, of Berkshire Partners in Boston. Reported in August.
220,000: Jennifer Sandall, no employment but same address as Robert Small in Boston. Reported in August.
$200,000: William Thorndike, Cromwell Harbor Partnership, Boston. Reported in August.
$220,000: Robin Richards Donohoe, investments, Carrollton, Georgia. Reported in August.
$150,000: Final Five Fund, Chicago. Founded by Katherine Gehl, who helped finance the 2020 campaign in Alaska to enact ranked-choice voting. Read about Gehl and this group here. She is formerly on the board of Unite America, listed above as a funder of the No on 2 campaign. The Final Five Fund funnels donations. Read more about how they funded the ballot initiative to start ranked-choice voting in Nevada here.
$200,000: John Carroll, Summit Partners, Hingham, Mass.
$220,000: Dan Markovitz, Corte Madera, Calif. Reported in August.
$65,108: Unite America PAC, non-monetary, for polling. Reported in June.
$11,881: Alaskans for Better Elections, non-monetary, for email list purchase. Reported in June.
$100,000: Final Five Fund, see above for description. Reported in June.
There are other donors who top off the entire campaign fund, which had $12.3 million on its 30-day report required by Alaska Public Offices Commission.
Where has the money been spent by No on 2?
Here are some of the vendors who have been paid by the No on 2 group:
Documents supporting the decision can be found at the Eklutna Hydroelectric Projectwebsite. This project is comprehensive, with significant local, state and national interest. Everything is thoroughly documented. And there are a lot of documents.
The 1991 purchase agreement required the governor to give equal consideration to the eight following factors to “ensure Eklutna [is] best adapted for power generation and other beneficial public uses.” These factors are:
Efficient and economical power generation and other beneficial public uses
Energy conservation
The protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat)
The protection of recreational opportunities
Municipal water supplies
The preservation of other aspects of environmental quality
Other beneficial public uses
Requirements of state law
Note that all of this falls directly out of the 1991 purchase agreement and must be addressed as part of this Final Program.
Dunleavy’s 30-page Decision Memorandum has a three-page transmittal letter and announced with State of Alaska Press Release 24-047. Depending on how deep you want to dig into the Eklutna Fish and Wildlife Program, I would start with the press release, move to the transmittal letter, and then to the 30-page program detail. Supporting documents for all this can be found in the Eklutna Hydro Project Documents page.
The adopted Final Program will restore year-round water flow to the Eklutna River. This will require purchasers to provide funding for monitoring, habitat enhancement, lakeside trail repairs, creation of a “Monitoring and Adaptive Management Committee,” a pair of limited program re-openers for possible replacement of the existing outlet and spillway of the dam, and potential construction of a fish passage into and out of Eklutna Lake.
Left unsaid is the observation that a continuous flow of water out of the lake will eventually require a higher water level in the lake. Water levels in the lake are highly variable over the course of the year leading to periodic dry riverbeds in sections. Note that a2017 paper by Loso, et al found no evidence of a former red salmon population spawning in the lake, although they could not preclude the existence of such a population before the original dam was constructed in 1929.
From here, the Final Program is a reasonable approach that balances everything the governor was asked to do with the 1991 purchase agreement. Commentors provided significant and what appears to me to be reasonable input. The only significant disagreement appears to be a group from Eagle River calling itself The Conservation Fund that is dedicated to removing the dam.
As I read the approved Final Program, it will be more difficult for a future governor, legislature or Anchorage Assembly majority to remove the dam.
From here, the approved Final Program is a reasonable approach to maintenance and improvement of what we have at Eklutna.
The Governor, his team and the owners of Eklutna should be congratulated on a job well done under potentially difficult circumstances.
Alex Gimarc lives in Anchorage since retiring from the military in 1997. His interests include science and technology, environment, energy, economics, military affairs, fishing and disabilities policies. His weekly column “Interesting Items” is a summary of news stories with substantive Alaska-themed topics. He was a small business owner and Information Technology professional.
At times, the question “Do we have the best state legislature money can buy?” echoes loudly across Alaska’s political landscape, with a tintinnabulation of urgency, concern, and disillusion.
While we are fortunate to have some dedicated conservative lawmakers who, if allowed to participate in the legislative process freely, would undoubtedly steer Alaska back to its roots as a natural resource powerhouse, there’s a truth that can’t be ignored: These same representatives receive the majority of their campaign funding from the very constituents they represent — Alaskans who share their values and vision for the state and its future.
A growing number of candidates have strayed from this model of local support. Instead, a troubling trend has emerged, where campaign coffers are increasingly filled with donations from Big Labor and its powerful affiliates.
This is no small issue. The ramifications of this are felt in Alaska’s socio-economic matrix and impacts Alaska’s future generations with present selfishness and future foolishness.
Each election cycle brings a growing number of candidates dependent on union-backed funding, with their campaigns fueled by organizations that prioritize their agendas over the well-being of Alaskans. This is evidenced by the expansion of government bureaucracy, escalating budgets, and a disconnect from the priorities of the people. Instead of restraining government power, candidates seem more focused on controlling the populace and abandoning the principles of limited governance that are essential for preserving Alaska’s freedom and prosperity.
Is your district being seduced by a candidate who floods you with grand promises of progress, assuring you that everything is improving because of his/her leadership?
Does the candidate captivate you with pledges that your community will prosper—not through thoughtful, long-term planning, but by handing out short-term pork-barrel projects timed perfectly to win votes each election cycle?
Behind this carefully crafted facade, have you noticed that this candidate is largely funded by Big Labor and its affiliates? The question then becomes: Is the candidate truly working for you, or for the special interests that bankroll his ambitions?
The influence of these organizations has surged to unprecedented levels in Alaska, and voters must confront this reality with urgency. If left unchecked, this dominance could reshape the state’s future in ways that no longer prioritize the needs of everyday Alaskans. It’s critical that voters examine the truth behind these campaigns now, before it’s too late to reclaim control from special interests.
In the 2024 election cycle, we see this trend. Many campaigns in Alaska are receiving minimal financial support from local constituents. Instead, they are largely funded by Big Labor, government employee unions, and their affiliates.
Who are these candidates really serving? What policies will they champion? The answers to these questions are crucial, as Alaska’s future hangs in the balance.
Labor unions, including public-sector unions, are pouring massive sums of money into the campaigns of candidates who promise to increase government spending—on Medicaid, on education without accountability, on reviving defined benefit pension plans, even as Alaska faces billions in unfunded liabilities, on the PFD, and on the continuing need for infrastructure development.
Medicaid Expansion: Who’s Really Benefiting?
The expansion of Medicaid in Alaska has been a contentious issue. Health is the largest component of Alaska’s operating budget. While federal funding significantly supports Medicaid in Alaska, the state will increasingly have to shoulder a larger portion of the costs, which could become a major fiscal issue in the coming years. Evergreen Economics in its Long-Term Forecast of Medicaid Enrollment and Spending in Alaska: FY2024-FY2044 sees this as an annual state and federal funding increase of 4.4%.
While government funded health care may seem like a compassionate move, it’s important to question who is really benefiting from this money tree. With millions of federal dollars flowing into the state under Medicaid expansion, healthcare unions and their affiliates have reaped major financial rewards.
Many candidates who support further expansion are not doing so out of concern for Alaska’s fiscal or its physical and mental health, but because they are backed by labor unions who stand to profit from the increased funding. And while some candidates make it seem like expanding Medicaid will solve Alaska’s healthcare issues, it also increases the state’s dependency on federal funding and deepens the state’s fiscal crisis.
Education Funding Without Accountability
Another area where Big Labor’s influence is glaring is education. Alaska’s education system has seen consistently increases in funding, but with little to show in terms of results. Education represents the second largest component of Alaska’s operating budget.
The powerful teachers’ unions, which back many of these candidates, push for ever-higher budgets without addressing the accountability needed to ensure better outcomes for Alaska’s children. While more money flows into the system, Alaska continues to rank at the bottom in educational performance compared to other states. This is a truly dark cloud when we consider the needed levels of educated citizens necessary to propel Alaska into a strong future.
The unions, with their financial clout, continue to push for more education money without being held accountable for results—a dangerous cycle that leaves our children underserved and in dire straits as adults.
These candidates are very easy to single out since they preach about not enough state funding participation in education but are reticent on performance and outcome.
The Defined Benefits Debate: A Financial Time Bomb
The resurrection of defined benefit pension plans is perhaps one of the most dangerous policies being pushed by candidates supported by government employee unions. Alaska moved away from defined benefits years ago because they were financially unsustainable, leaving the state with billions in unfunded liabilities. Despite this, Big Labor-backed candidates are advocating for their return, which would only deepen Alaska’s fiscal woes. Who benefits from this? Government employees and their unions, while the average Alaskan is left holding the bill as liabilities balloon.
The Permanent Fund Dividend: A Political Football
Let’s talk about the Permanent Fund dividend. For years, conservative lawmakers have fought to preserve the PFD as a direct benefit to Alaskan families. But many in the legislature, backed by Big Labor and special interests, have been pushing to reduce or cap the dividend to fund government spending—spending that benefits the same labor unions that bankroll their campaigns. For almost a decade, these candidates argue that cutting the PFD is necessary to fund essential services and the state budget continues to grow, but it’s clear that their true agenda is to maintain the ever-growing government bureaucracy, which keeps their union backers happy.
Big Labor’s Insatiable Hunger
Alaska’s long and troubled pursuit of building infrastructure, particularly in the Bush, has become a significant financial and political burden. Over the decades, billions of dollars have been poured into expanding infrastructure—roads, airports, energy systems, and government facilities—yet many of these projects have failed to deliver the expected benefits. Instead, they have contributed to long-term debt, bloated bureaucracy, and economic strain.
Since the early 1980’s, Alaska has heavily relied on oil revenues to fund not only basic services but also ambitious infrastructure projects. While these projects were often aimed at improving the quality of life for residents, they frequently resulted in spiraling costs. The expense of maintaining this vast infrastructure has been immense, and it’s often argued that these projects were built without sufficient consideration of their long-term sustainability, all of which were spearheaded by Big Labor and the candidates it has bought and paid for.
Who Is Representing You?
The influence of Big Labor and its affiliates has reached record highs in Alaska. The questions for voters are simple: Who is your candidate accountable to? Are they working for their constituency? Are they beholden to the unions and special interests that finance their campaigns?
It’s time to reclaim Alaska’s political future and support candidates who prioritize the needs of Alaskans, who take their funding from the grassroots, and who will fight for a state where natural resource development, fiscal responsibility, and individual liberty are prioritized over the interests of Big Labor and their agenda of unchecked government expansion.
Have you ever gone to The Alaska Public Offices Commission campaign income reports at this link and reviewed the financial reports?
Type in a candidate’s last name and click on search. It will produce an income report. For better clarity, you can produce an excel spreadsheet by clicking on “Export” and then click on “CVS.” This will produce a spreadsheet with will enable you to determine where the sources of campaign donations for this candidate come from.
Michael Tavoliero resides in Eagle River and writes for Must Read Alaska.
