By Shelley Hughes, former State Senator and 2026 Candidate for Governor
I have heard the same promises about the Permanent Fund Dividend for years. Every election cycle brings bold declarations, sweeping guarantees, and applause lines about “full PFDs” or “a final payment.” We are hearing it again this cycle, more of the same rhetoric, but emptier than ever.
One candidate promises to veto the entire state budget unless a full Permanent Fund Dividend is approved. It sounds strong. It sounds principled. It sounds like a fight worth having. But it ignores basic facts: there is no legislative majority supporting a full PFD. And where is the budget to support it?
That is not a new problem. The current governor has requested a full PFD the last eight years. The previous governor did as well. In both cases, the legislature declined. The issue has never been about a governor’s willingness. It is about the votes in the legislature.
So, what happens if a governor repeatedly vetoes the entire budget in pursuit of something the legislature will not pass? The legislature overrides the veto, governance becomes chaotic, and the state lurches from crisis to crisis without a credible fiscal plan.
I am willing to debate PFD funding directly with every other candidate. First, I want to make something clear: if you want that debate, bring the plan. Show the list of legislators who will change their votes. Show where the money comes from to sustain a full PFD alongside core services. Lobbing out a platitude without a clear plan is not leadership and will not magically produce a full PFD. It is political theater to manipulate emotions and win votes; it is not honest leadership.
Another candidate offers a different kind of promise: an 8 percent payout of the total Permanent Fund to Alaskans as a final dividend.
That idea faces an even higher hurdle. A one-time distribution of that magnitude may require a constitutional amendment, and there has never been sufficient legislative support to pass one.
And even if that barrier could somehow be cleared, would there be the votes to take the PFD out of statute? There have not been the votes the last ten years to rewrite the formula to a lower PFD; why would there suddenly be the votes to get rid of the PFD altogether?
In addition, Alaskans and lawmakers are already asking the deeper questions: is cashing out a small portion of Alaska’s long-term asset in a single payment really the right answer? Why does this candidate want to shortchange Alaskans in the long run? Will this really take care of the budget problem? Will they come after my wallet next?
A one-time payout risks becoming something else entirely. Instead of strengthening the state, it could accelerate outmigration, acting more like a “leave Alaska” fund than an investment in its future.
I am willing to debate that proposal as well. But again, the requirements are simple. Show the two-thirds of legislators who will vote for a constitutional amendment. Show the majority vote to repeal the PFD law. Show how the state replaces the economic role the dividend plays in communities across Alaska. If the votes and the plan are not there, neither is the idea.
For me, the PFD is not an abstract policy debate. I fought for the dividend for years in the legislature, often at personal and political cost. Multiple times I lost committee chairmanships and assignments, staff, and office space for standing my ground for Alaskans. No gubernatorial candidate fought as hard or took the hits like I did for the PFD. I understand how these spending decisions are actually made, where they succeed, and where they fail. I know the proposals by the other two candidates will get nowhere fast.
More importantly, I understand what the PFD means to real people because I have lived it. I have lived below the poverty line. I know firsthand that for many Alaskans, the dividend is not a bonus. It is what fills the gap between getting by and falling behind. It supports families, sustains entreprenurs and local businesses, and keeps communities viable in a high-cost state.
That perspective matters because it leads to a different kind of solution.
Instead of offering rhetoric or one-time payouts, I focus on the only question that matters: how do you make the PFD sustainable as state budgets get tighter?
My answer is the only serious idea on the table.
I propose a two-budget approach that separates mandatory spending from discretionary spending. Today, the PFD is constantly forced to compete against essential services like education and public safety. In recent years in that framework, it has been losing.
By separating the budgets, Alaskans can finally see where flexibility exists and where it does not. It allows a real debate over discretionary spending, where the PFD currently resides due to the Supreme Court ruling under the Walker administration, instead of pitting it against core services in a way that guarantees its elimination.
Just as importantly, my budget is about finding the funds. It emphasizes spending discipline, modernization, and eliminating inefficiencies across government. The goal is to uncover savings and develop our vast resources that will allow Alaska to preserve the dividend without imposing broad-based taxes.
That is the difference between rhetoric and reality.
Anyone can promise a full PFD. Anyone can promise a massive payout. But unless you can show how it passes the legislature and how it is funded, those promises mean very little.
I am offering something different. I am offering to have a hard conversation. I am willing to debate any candidate on the future of the PFD, line by line, vote by vote. But the condition is simple: bring your list, bring your legislative votes, bring your numbers, and bring a budget that actually works.
Because Alaska’s future must be built on realistic solutions, not empty rhetoric.
This op-ed was voluntarily submitted by the Hughes-Gettys campaign and not solicited by Must Read Alaska. All candidates running for elected office are welcome and encouraged to submit articles for publication. Must Read Alaska unequivocally supports the election of a conservative candidate to the Office of Governor but does not endorse a particular candidate.
