On Monday, Jan 26, Governor Dunleavy opted Alaska into the Federal K-12 Education Tax Credit Scholarship Program. The program was enacted by the President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act and allows individuals and families to claim a tax credit up to $1,700 a year when donating to a school of their choice. To qualify for the tax credit, taxpayers must donate to a Scholarship Granting Organization (SGO) which will then distribute the funds to the school that the taxpayer chooses.
The program requires governors to opt their state into the program for taxpayers in that state to participate.
Scholarships granted by the SGO will be given to eligible families making up to 300% of their area’s median gross income. Recipients may use the funds for qualified expenses, including:
Tuition, fees, books, supplies, other equipment, academic tutoring, and special needs services for special needs beneficiaries that are incurred by the beneficiary in connection with enrollment or attendance as an elementary or secondary school student at a public, private, or religious school;
Room and board, uniforms, transportation, and supplementary items and services (including extended day programs) if these expenses are required or provided by a public, private, or religious school in connection with enrollment or attendance; and
Computer technology, equipment, or internet access and related services if used by the beneficiary and the beneficiary’s family during any of the years the beneficiary is in elementary or secondary school.
According to Governor Dunleavy: “Opting into the ECCA creates another opportunity for families and students to reap the benefits of school choice -something more and more Alaskans are choosing, all while having no negative impact on the State budget and allowing an equivalent tax deduction to those who choose to support education through their donations.”
Commissioner Deena Bishop also commented on the program: “This credit offers families another valuable tool to utilize in making the best education decision for their students. Doing everything we can to help our kids earn their success is our mission as educators, and this is another step in the right direction.”
Alaska’s Senate Resources Committee convened on Tuesday, January 26, to dissect the state’s natural gas export ambitions through the lens of Canada’s LNG Canada project, a rare success story in the North American LNG sector. With developer Glenfarne Group signaling renewed momentum toward a pipeline and export facility from the North Slope to Nikiski, lawmakers sought clarity on fiscal frameworks, cost overruns, tax incentives, and project readiness. Consultants from GaffneyCline—energy advisory firm Senior Director of LNG and Energy Transition Nicholas Fulford and Director of Facilities and Cost Andrew Duncan—delivered detailed testimony, highlighting contrasts between Canada’s approach and Alaska’s evolving proposal.
The LNG Canada project, located in Kitimat on British Columbia’s mid-coast, has become a benchmark for Pacific-facing LNG developments. Built around a roughly 400-mile pipeline constructed by TransCanada, the project overcame rugged terrain and significant cost escalation. Fulford noted that budgeted construction costs for the Coastal GasLink pipeline ballooned from CAD $6 billion to CAD $16.4 billion, with overruns absorbed primarily by TransCanada and project sponsor Shell. Despite the escalation, the project reached final investment decision (FID) and has since begun operations.
Canada’s success hinged on a carefully negotiated fiscal environment that provided long-term predictability. The federal government granted “Nation Building Status,” signaling that the project’s tax and regulatory framework would remain stable. British Columbia mitigated front-loaded taxes, reduced corporate income tax rates from 12% to 9% through credits, and introduced accelerated depreciation to defer tax burdens. A capped carbon tax was also locked in, offering investors certainty absent in Alaska, which has no carbon tax. Property taxes in Canada remained far lower than Alaska’s typical rates.
Fulford stressed the importance of such stability: “Ultimately what we are talking about is a fiscal framework and a government tax regime that an investor or lender can depend on in the long-term.”
The project’s financing relied entirely on private equity and parent-company balance sheets. Equity partners—including Shell, Petronas, and others—entered take-or-pay marketing arrangements covering 100% of their entitlements, transferring credit risk to highly rated corporate entities and securing low-cost debt. No direct government capital or guarantees were provided, unlike earlier Alaska proposals that envisioned significant state involvement.
Alaska’s current proposal, led by Glenfarne, diverges from the 2014 Senate Bill 138 framework. That earlier plan assumed state equity participation, profit-sharing mechanisms, and a pipeline primarily serving Southcentral Alaska power needs before export. Glenfarne’s structure emphasizes private development, with gas supplied from the North Slope and export focused on Asian markets. Fulford told senators the shift in profit allocation between upstream production and downstream liquefaction/export would require a fresh look at state taxation and revenue models. He noted that Wood Mackenzie’s analysis of the project appeared consistent with state assumptions, but recommended revisiting legislative direction to align incentives.
Duncan assessed Glenfarne’s progress as falling between decision gate 2 (concept selection) and decision gate 3 (pre-FEED), with FID typically occurring at gate 4 once Class 3 cost estimates solidify. He acknowledged Glenfarne’s public actions—securing construction resources, preliminary gas supply agreements, and permitting advancements—as reasonable momentum-building steps. “There does seem to be an assumption that the project will go ahead,” Duncan said. “I haven’t seen anything I would consider to be inappropriate.”
The global LNG market provides context for Alaska’s renewed interest. Current capacity stands at approximately 400 million tonnes per annum (MTPA), with projections targeting 700–800 MTPA by the early 2030s, driven largely by Asian demand. Pacific Coast projects benefit from low-cost feed gas and shorter shipping routes to premium markets. Fulford cited Petronas’s sale of a 5% stake in LNG Canada as an example of how equity can be monetized without perpetual state ownership.
Committee members pressed on disclosure, comparing Canada’s five-year fiscal negotiations with Glenfarne’s more opaque progress. They also explored whether tax breaks were needed for production, pipeline construction, or export operations, and whether the project’s evolution warrants new legislation. Fulford acknowledged that LNG Canada’s developers had insisted on tax changes to make the projects investable, breaking a years-long impasse.
Alaska’s project faces unique challenges, including higher property taxes and a history of stalled efforts dating back decades. Yet proponents argue low-cost North Slope gas and strategic location could compete effectively if fiscal terms attract investment. The committee’s discussion signals lawmakers are weighing whether to update statutes or maintain flexibility as Glenfarne advances toward potential groundbreaking.
No formal recommendations emerged from the hearing, but the testimony underscored that predictable, investor-friendly policies were key to Canada’s success. Alaska’s path forward may hinge on similar adaptations.
The Senate State Affairs Committee met today, Jan 27, at 3:30pm to hear from the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA). AIDEA’s mission is “to promote, develop, and advance economic growth and diversification in AK by providing various means of financing and investment.”
Democrat Introduced AIDEA Accountability Act
Last week, the House State Affairs Committee heard and discussed HB 124, known as the AIDEA Accountability Act, sponsored by Representative Ashley Carrick (D-Fairbanks). HB 124 seeks to enhance “legislative and public oversight of AIDEA as a state corporation.” Representatives Kevin McCabe (R-Big Lake) and Sarah Vance (R-Homer) criticized the bill as “micromanagement” and “anti economic development.”
Reports of Continued Success
At the Senate State Affairs meeting today, AIDEA Chief Investment Officer Geoffery Johns presented on AIDEA’s progress and significant projects. Johns was accompanied by Chief General Counsel Kent Sullivan and Infrastructure Development Senior Finance Officer Jeff San Juan.
Johns began by stating that AIDEA was created by the State Legislature to take on state development projects, specifically focused on economic development and job creation in Alaska. The state-owned corporation has seen great success with a cumulative $60.1 billion in economic output from 1987 to 2026. In 2025, AIDEA declared a $17 million dividend. The corporation’s net position has risen from $1.491 billion in 2024 to $1.560 billion in 2025.
Highlights of Significant Projects
Johns highlighted AIDEA’s significant projects, touching on the corporation’s role in Alaska’s small business economy, the Ambler Road project, West Susitna Access project, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 leasing, Delong Mountain Transportation System, Interior Gas Utility project, Ketchikan shipyard, Alyeschem North Slope plant, HEX Furie, and Blood Bank of Alaska.
The Committee’s discussion focused heavily on the Ambler Road project.
Ambler Road Discussion
According to Johns, the Ambler project will create over 3,000 direct jobs and approximately $1 billion in profit for the State. The AIDEA board approved over $100 million of its own money to invest in the project.
Permitting
Senator Scott Kawasaki (D-Fairbanks) asked Johns if the road has been fully permitted. Johns handed the question to AIDEA’s Infrastructure Development Senior Finance Officer Jeff San Juan. San Juan replied that the corporation has secured all the state permits and expects federal permits to be secured soon.
Ownership and Accessibility
Sen. Kawasaki then asked if the road will be accessible to the public. San Juan answered that the road will be private industrial access only with no public access. Later in the discussion, Chief General Counsel Kent Sullivan clarified why the Ambler Road project cannot permit public access. He explained that the native corporations NANA and Doyon required AIDEA to guarantee private industrial access only, otherwise the native corporations would refuse to allow the project to continue over their lands. “There was no other way,” he stated.
Sullivan also clarified that the road will not be owned by just one mining company but will be owned by all stakeholders along the road.
Then San Juan addressed Sen. Kawasaki’s next question related to differences in permitting between the Ambler Road project and the Pogo Gold Mine. San Juan said the two have different permitting because the Pogo permits assume transfer to the public at some point, whereas the Ambler Road will never be made public.
Senator Jesse Bjorkman (R-Nikiski) jumped into the conversation, asking where NANA stands on Ambler. NANA had originally supported the project, but then later expressed opposition. According to San Juan, AIDEA is working with NANA and “NANA is starting to communicate… the relationship is starting to get rebuilt.”
Targeted Hiring
Shifting to the project’s hiring potential, Sen. Kawasaki asked if AIDEA will require contracted companies to hire local Alaskans to work on the project. San Juan responded that AIDEA, as a state-owned corporation, cannot impose a hiring preferential. Legal Counsel Sullivan corroborated, stating that as a state corporation, AIDEA cannot do preferential hires for Alaska natives, but NANA and Doyon can prefer to hire natives to work on the portions of the road going across NANA and Doyon land.
Sen. Kawasaki then asked if AIDEA still prioritizes “jobs for Alaskans,” as their mission statement proposes. Sullivan answered, “yes, it is a big consideration… it is a part of the conversation.” Sen. Kawasaki asked how it could be part of the conversation if AIDEA is prohibited from preferential hiring. Sullivan responded that AIDEA can choose which companies it wants to contract with based on that company’s percentage of in-state vs. out-of-state employment, but AIDEA cannot impose a hiring bias when it comes to the individuals hired to work on the project. Furthermore, Sullivan emphasized that AIDEA has an Alaska preference (which it express through contracts with companies who hire Alaskans), but not a native corporation shareholder preferential.
Wildlife Impact
The conversation about Ambler finished with Rep. Bjorkman asking AIDEA to confirm that the project will have minimal impact to wildlife. Sullivan and San Juan both confirmed that AIDEA’s study found that the project would have minimal impact to wildlife, particularly to caribou.
AIDEA’s Relationship to the PFD
After wrapping up his presentation on significant project highlights, Johns spoke briefly on AIDEA’s relationship to the Permanent Fund. According to Johns, the State Legislature formed AIDEA as “a shield to protect the Permanent Fund.” AIDEA is a distinct institution, not part of the Permanent Fund Corporation, and its dividends help cushion the Permanent Fund.
Recently, a Seattle-based association attempted to change Alaska’s recreational halibut limit from two fish to one fish via the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC). IPHC deferred review to the North Pacific Management Council, who holds the correct jurisdiction.
The following document provided to Must Read Alaska identifies the Fishing Vessel Owners’ Association (FVOA) of Seattle as the association that attempted the new restriction. According to a letter from Per Odegaard of the FVOA, “Due to the continued decline of the halibut resource, FVOA members are expecting reduced commercial harvest limits for 2026 along with reduction to the guided sports industry. It is time that all harvesting sectors share in rebuilding the halibut resource.”
Senator Sullivan responded favorably to the IPHC’s decision to defer review, stating: “Pacific halibut harvested off Alaska’s coast is a shared resource that goes through extensive management review to ensure careful conservation. Alaskan families and coastal communities have done this hard work of sustainable stewardship for generations. I will continue to fight for resource and fisheries management systems that follow the law, respect local knowledge, and keep Alaska’s fisheries strong, sustainable, and thriving.”
In every serious debate about the Permanent Fund Dividend, a familiar phrase eventually appears: “free money.” It is usually followed by a warning about mob rule, emotional voters, and the supposed irresponsibility of letting the people speak directly on fiscal policy.
That phrase — free money — is doing far more work than it deserves.
The PFD is not free money. It never was.
Alaskans did not receive private mineral rights under their land at statehood. Instead, those rights were pooled into common ownership, with a constitutional command that Alaska’s natural resource wealth be managed and conserved for the maximum benefit of the people. The Permanent Fund was created to honor that bargain across generations. The Dividend emerged as a uniform, per-capita distribution of income derived from that commonly owned resource wealth.
That structure matters. It explains why the PFD is paid equally to every qualified Alaskan, without means testing, political favoritism, or discretionary adjustment. It is not welfare. It is not a subsidy. It is a royalty-like distribution arising from shared ownership.
Critics often respond that there is no “binding contract” guaranteeing the Dividend. That observation misunderstands how public obligations work. Not all duties arise from signed agreements. Some arise from constitutional structure, statutory design, and decades of consistent administrative practice that induce public reliance.
For more than thirty years, the State of Alaska administered the PFD uniformly and predictably. Families planned around it. Rural communities relied on it. Local economies incorporated it. The state itself promoted it as a defining feature of Alaska’s social compact. That history is not meaningless. In law and equity, reliance matters. In constitutional governance, trust matters.
What changed in 2016 was not the Constitution, and not the Permanent Fund. What changed was legislative behavior.
Today, two conflicting PFD statutes coexist without resolution. The executive branch selectively follows one and ignores the other. Courts defer rather than adjudicate the underlying constitutional conflict. This is not a policy disagreement; it is institutional failure. When elected officials refuse to reconcile conflicting laws while continuing to appropriate Permanent Fund income for general spending, they are not exercising prudence— they are avoiding accountability.
Some argue that allowing a statewide vote on the PFD would amount to mob rule. That claim turns republican government on its head. Alaska’s Constitution does not treat the people as a last resort or a threat to stability. Article I, Section 2 declares plainly that all political power is inherent in the people. The initiative and referendum process exists precisely for moments when representative bodies entrench themselves against the public will on matters of fundamental importance.
If the PFD truly lacks significance, a vote should pose no danger. If it is as consequential as legislative actions suggest, then the people have every right to speak directly. Rejecting a vote while dismissing public reliance on the Dividend reveals not wisdom, but fear.
The real danger to republican government is not citizens voting. It is institutions redefining long-standing public assets as discretionary revenue streams while telling the people they have no standing to object. That is not responsible governance. It is managed consent.
Reasonable Alaskans can disagree about formulas, amounts, and implementation. What is no longer reasonable is pretending that the PFD is merely “extra money,” or that decades of uniform practice created no obligation, expectation, or duty of care. The Permanent Fund represents a trust relationship between the state and the people— one that no single legislature has the authority to quietly dismantle.
The people are not asking for something new. They are asking why something long honored was broken, why conflicting laws remain unresolved, and why they are told they have no right even to vote on restoring it.
The PFD is not free money. And the people are not the problem. They are the source of all legitimate power, and it is time our institutions remembered that.
Ed Martin, Jr. is a retired 50+ year IUOE, General Contractor and long-time Alaskan with a strong belief in the National and State Constitutions and the inherent rights of citizens. He devotes his retirement to investigating Constitutional violation(s) in hopes of protecting the eternal rights of liberty. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” — 2 Corinthians 3:17.
Today, Jan 27, the House State Affairs Committee will meet at 3:15pm. Tucked into the agenda is consideration of HB 202, “An Act designating giant cabbage as the official state vegetable; and providing for an effective date.” This agenda item follows invited and public testimony on HB 124 (AIDEA Accountability Act) and public testimony on HB 81, which restricts the release of certain records of convictions.
The bill was first introduced April 22, 2025, and referred to State Affairs. No other action has since been taken on the bill except to add cosponsors.
Sponsors include: DeLena Johnson (R-Palmer), Genevieve Mina (D-Anchorage), Zack Fields (D-Anchorage), Kevin McCabe (R-Big Lake), Jeremy Bynum (R-Ketchikan), Will Stapp (R-Fairbanks), Rebecca Schwanke (R-Glenallen), Frank Tomaszewski (R-Fairbanks), Mike Prax (R-North Pole), Ashley Carrick (D-Fairbanks), Robyn Niayuq Frier (D-Utqiagvik), and former Representative/ current Senator Cathy Tilton (R-Wasilla).
Jan 23, Senator Sullivan announced the International Pacific Halibut Commission’s (IPHC) decision to defer review of a Seattle-based trade association’s proposed regulation that would change Alaska’s unguided recreational halibut limit from two fish to one fish.
The IPHC does not have jurisdiction over this matter and has deferred review to the North Pacific Management Council. Sullivan stated: “This decision reaffirms that the IPHC does not have the authority to make this change, which I agree with.”
The Seattle-based trade association, which was not identified in the press release, failed in its first attempt to force regulations on Alaska’s fishing community. The motivation behind the association’s attempt is not known, but the attempt raises red flags. The association’s regulatory proposal will now go to the North Pacific Management Council for review.
This information was provided by business lawyers at Romano Law PLLC.Republished as originally writtenwith slight formatting changes.
A new study has revealed the best and worst states in America to start a new business.
Business lawyers at Romano Law PLLC analyzed various factors to determine the ranking.
These included the number of business applications and the year-on-year change between November 2022 and 2023 (the most up-to-date data), the annual change of real gross domestic product (GDP) in quarter three of 2023, regional unfriendly customer ratings, and business failure rates within one year.
Based on these factors, the study awarded each state a final score out of 100. The states with the highest overall scores were then deemed the best locations to start a business.
Alaska’s Findings:
According to the study,Alaskais the fourth-worst state to start a business in 2025, with a final index score of 31.40 out of 100. The state had 3% fewer business applications between November 2022 and 2023 compared to the previous year, 128% less than the national average for business applications. Alaska also had a 3.6% change in annual GDP as of quarter three of 2023, 24% less than the average in America.
Domenic Romano, Managing Partner of Romano Law PLLC, has commented on the study:
“In 2025, competition between businesses remains high. This is why you must choose the correct location for your individual business needs. While location may seem like a less important factor when starting up a new business, this can ultimately make or break your business venture.
“Whether it’s due to high levels of competition, high bills, or simply a lack of business opportunities, some states have higher business failure rates than others. It’s important to recognize that business survival rates are not uniform across the US before embarking on a new business venture.
“It’s also essential that you have a thorough understanding of your state’s specific employment laws before starting up a new business. Early business failures are often brought about by inadequate protection when it comes to employment disputes. This is why it’s so crucial that you’re taking the correct measures to protect yourself and your business from any costly disputes.”
The Worst States for Business Owners in America:
The study reveals that Arkansas achieved a score of only 26.12 out of 100. As of the third quarter of 2023, the state’s annual change of GDP was 0.7%, the lowest in the nation, and 85% lower than the national average. The state’s businesses may also experience a higher number of negative customer interactions, with Arkansas being given a regional unfriendly customer rating of 94 out of 100, the highest score in the country.
Businesses in Arkansas are also more likely to fail than elsewhere in America, with the state achieving a business failure rate of 22.50%, which is slightly higher than the national average rate of 22.17%.
Rhode Island, with a final score of 28.58 out of 100, is the second-worst state for business owners. The state’s business failure rates within one year are the highest in America, reaching 27% as of March 2022. Rhode Island’s annual GDP was also 3.9% as of the third quarter of 2023, 18% less than the national average.
According to the data, New Hampshire is the third-worst location in America for new business owners. In the state, 25% of businesses are reported to have failed within one year as of March 2022, 12% higher than the national average. The state also has an unfriendly customer rating of 94 out of 100, tying with Arkansas for the top spot, resulting in a final index score of just 29.58 out of 100.
Vermontbusinesses have a failure rate of 26%, according to the study, 17% higher than the national average. There was also a 1.7% change in business applications, 83% less than the average for business applications in America, leaving the state with a final index score of 32.42 out of 100.
Other states that received low scores include West Virginia and Mississippi.
The Top 10 Worst States to Start a Business:
*Table highlights stand-out factors of the study, not the study in its entirety.
Rank
State
Annual Increase of Business Applications
Annual Increase in Gross Domestic Product
Business Failure Rate Within One Year
Score /100
1
Arkansas
1.30%
0.70%
23%
26.12
2
Rhode Island
8.90%
3.90%
27%
28.58
3
New Hampshire
7.20%
7.20%
25%
29.58
4
Alaska
-3%
3.60%
24%
31.4
5
Vermont
1.70%
3.90%
26%
32.42
6
West Virginia
4.80%
3.70%
20%
32.49
7
Mississippi
-5.70%
0.80%
21%
34.41
8
Maine
9.80%
4.90%
23%
34.59
9
Connecticut
10.30%
4.70%
23%
35.03
10
Virginia
4.70%
4.20%
23%
35.78
Meanwhile, the data also highlights the top locations for business owners in America.
Wyoming is crowned the best state for business owners, with a final score of 76.19 out of 100. The state had 907 business applications between November 2022 and 2023, 39% higher than the previous year. This growth is higher than any other state and 517% higher than the national average. There was also a 6% change in GDP in the third quarter of 2023, which is 26% higher than the national average.
With a final score of 61.48 out of 100, Nevada is the second-best state for business owners. In the state, the annual change of GDP was 7% in quarter three of 2023, 47% higher than the national average. Also, only 19% of the state’s businesses failed within one year, meaning businesses are 16.6% more likely to succeed in Nevada.
Texas takes third place, with an overall score of 61.18 out of 100. The number of business applications in the state rose by 24% between November 2022 and 2023. Texas has also seen an 8% GDP rise in the third quarter of 2023, 68% higher than the national average.
According to the data, Texas has a business failure rate of 20.70%, which is almost 7% lower than the national average failure rate of 22.17%.
The study found that California is the fourth-best state to start a business in 2025. The state received a final score of 58.65 out of 100. California has the lowest rate of business failures in America, with only 13.20% of businesses failing within the first year. This is an impressive 40% lower than the national average rate, highlighting California’s reputation as a business hotspot.
Pennsylvania is in fifth place, with a final score of 58.49 out of 100. Pennsylvania saw a 33% rise in annual business applications between November 2022 and 2023, 213% higher than the national average and the second highest out of the top 10 ranking. The state also has a business failure rate of 19.50%, which is over 12% lower than the national average failure rate.
The Top 10 Best States to Start a Business:
*Table highlights stand-out factors of the study, not the study in its entirety.
Rank
State
Annual Increase of Business Applications
Annual Increase in Gross Domestic Product
Business Failure Rate Within One Year
Score /100
1
Wyoming
39%
6%
24%
76.19
2
Nevada
5%
6%
19%
61.48
3
Texas
24%
8%
21%
61.18
4
California
9%
5%
13%
58.65
5
Pennsylvania
33%
6%
20%
58.49
6
Oregon
28%
5%
23%
56.53
7
Oklahoma
14%
6%
21%
56.51
8
Kansas
20%
10%
25%
53.93
9
Kentucky
21%
5%
22%
53.82
10
South Dakota
8%
5%
22%
53.73
The research reveals that Oregon is the sixth-best state to start a business, with an overall score of 56.53 out of 100. The state had 123 business applications per 100,000 people between March 2022 and 2023, a 28% change from the previous year. The data also reveals that Oregon is home to some of the most positive customer reviews in America, demonstrating the state’s reputation for high-quality service.
Next up is Oklahoma, with a score of 56.51 out of 100. In the state, 21% of businesses failed within one year as of March 2022, which is over 5% less than the national average failure rate. Oklahoma has also seen a 6% rise in annual GDP, 26% higher than the national average.
Kansas takes the eighth spot in the ranking, with an overall score of 53.93. Between 2022 and 2023, the state experienced a 19.8% growth in regional businesses, demonstrating how Kansas is rapidly becoming a hotspot for local business owners. The state also experienced a 9.7% rise in GDP, the highest figure in the study, and a whopping 104% above the national average figure of 4.76%.
Kentucky is revealed to be the ninth-best location for new businesses, with a score of 53.82. The state is home to some of the most positive customer reviews in America, following closely behind states like South Dakota and Missouri. Kentucky also experienced an impressive growth in the number of local businesses in the area, rising by 21% between 2022 and 2023.
With a score of 53.73 out of 100, South Dakota rounds out the top 10 ranking. According to the data, South Dakota is home to some of the most positive customer reviews in America, demonstrating how businesses in the local area consistently provide high-quality service. The state also experienced a 5.2% rise in GDP, which is higher than the national average rate of 4.76%.
The 5 Things New Business Owners Must Do to Prevent Legal Trouble:
Starting a new business is an exciting step, but many business owners are unaware that simple slip-ups mean that potential legal trouble is looming just around the corner.
Whether you’re starting up a small online shop or embarking on a large in-person business venture, taking a proactive approach from day one not only protects your business from costly disputes but also builds a stronger foundation for long-term growth.
In light of this new study, business lawyers at Romano Law PLLC have shared urgent advice on the things new business owners must do to avoid potential legal trouble.
1. Ensure that you’re registering your business correctly
Selecting the correct entity, such as an LLC, corporation, partnership, or sole proprietorship, determines everything from your tax obligations to your personal liability.
Many new owners default to the simplest structure, only to realize later that they’re personally exposed to lawsuits or debts further down the line. Ensure you file the necessary formation documents with your state and consistently meet ongoing requirements like annual reports and fees.
2. Insure your business
Incorporating your business does not guarantee legal protection. This is why you must protect your business with the insurance policy that’s right for your individual business.
3. Comply with copyright regulations
When starting up a new business, it may be easier than initially thought to accidentally step on the toes of another business’s property rights. For example, when creating marketing material, you may accidentally use someone else’s image without paying a licensing fee.
These issues, while easily done, can result in hefty disputes, which many new businesses are understandably unprepared to deal with. This is why it’s essential to ensure that you’re not using anyone else’s content without being correctly licensed to do so. If possible, consult a trademark lawyer to avoid any potential slip-ups.
On the other end of the spectrum, it’s also important to register your own trademarks as early as possible. Your business name, logo, and services are all valuable assets, so it’s crucial to ensure that you’re registering these correctly. Failing to do so can result in infringement issues or disputes that may result in a costly rebrand later.
4. Organize your contracts from day one
Every business relationship, whether with clients, suppliers, contractors, or partners, should be governed by a written contract that clearly outlines expectations, payment terms, deliverables, confidentiality protections, and dispute-resolution mechanisms.
In order to draw up your contracts, it’s essential to consult a lawyer. Avoid using standard online templates that may not be suitable for your individual business needs.
Using well-drafted contracts reduces ambiguity and provides legal protection if something goes wrong further down the line.
5. Understand and comply with your state’s individual employment laws
When starting up a new business, one of the most essential pieces of advice is to keep up to date with your state’s employment laws. As laws can range from state to state, it’s essential to ensure that you have a thorough understanding of your state’s regulations.
Some of the most important topics to understand include proper worker classification, minimum wage compliance, overtime rules, anti-discrimination policies, and maintaining required documentation. Having a thorough understanding of these issues is absolutely crucial when it comes to avoiding future legal issues.
For example, one of the most important elements of employment law is proper worker classification. Based on your individual state’s requirements, it’s crucial to ensure that you’re correctly differentiating between employees and independent contractors. Failing to correctly classify your business’s workers can result in potential legal disputes, so you must have a thorough understanding of your state’s employment laws.
Methodology
The study analyzed various factors to determine the best and worst states to start a business in 2025.
These factors included the number of business applications and the year-on-year change between November 2022 and 2023, the annual change of real gross domestic product (GDP) in quarter three of 2023, regional unfriendly customer ratings, and business failure rates within one year.
The results were then compared against 100,000 people in each state to accurately compare data between states of differing sizes.
Based on these factors, each state was awarded a final score out of 100.
The states with the highest scores were then deemed the best locations to start a business.
This morning, Jan 26, the Senate Finance Committee heard the governor’s presentation of the proposed FY 27 budget. Director of the Office of Management and Budget Lacey Sanders gave the presentation.
According to Sanders, the governor’s instructions for the budget were to fulfill the State’s current obligations as required by law with no new projects moving forward.
Fiscal Summary
The FY 27 budget is proposed at $6.0655 billion. The State will incur a deficit of $1.5306 billion which is proposed to be funded via the Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR). The CBR is currently at $2.959 billion.
Senators’ Initial Concerns
Senator Jesse Kiehl (D-Juneau) expressed concern that there is no supplemental provided in the budget. Sen. Kiehl says he has never seen a year where no supplemental was provided. A supplemental allows the Legislature to fund needs not specifically identified by the government’s budget.
Senator Burt Stedman (R-Sitka) echoed Sen. Kiehl’s concerns and also highlighted the lack of funding for infrastructure maintenance. “There is nothing for K-12 maintenance, nothing for university maintenance, nothing for courts, nothing for general maintenance,” he stated. “I don’t know what number the administration wants to put forward. But 0 is inappropriate. There needs to be some number.”
Senator Lyman Hoffman (D-Bethel) shared Kiehl and Stedman’s concerns, referencing a school that collapsed in Aniak as evidence that the maintenance funding is needed.
Sanders responded to the maintenance funding concerns by reiterating that this budget is to cover base obligations required by law, but the governor is happy to discuss modifications to the budget. “We continue to rely on a volatile revenue source,” she stated, referencing the need for discussion about new revenue sources.
Sen. Stedman briefly suggested modifying the appropriation for the Permanent Fund Dividend.
Operating Budget Highlights
Then Sanders presented significant highlights from the operating budget:
Capital Budget Highlights
After addressing Senators’ questions about the operating budget, Sanders moved on to present highlights from the capital budget:
More Concerns from the Senators
Sen. Stedman emphasized the need to get the State’s unfunded liability under control. Without addressing the unfunded liability in the budget, Alaskans will pay for it through property taxes. Sen Kiehl added that the legislature put itself in this position of debt by choosing to amortize its liability to keep up-front cash for the gasline project.
The Committee also discussed the rates of vacant positions among different government agencies. Sen. Kiehl emphasized that agencies are running into real issues getting the work done.
Budgetary discussions will continue throughout the Legislative session.
