Union members are roughly divided 60% to 40% between Democrats and Republicans, a recent survey by the Pew Research Center reveals. With millions of members nationwide, it would be reasonable to expect these powerful organizations to represent their members with a similar breakdown in political spending. Consideration of all of their members’ political views doesn’t seem to exist.
New data from the Federal Election Commission, released on October 17, shows that of the money the American Federation of Teachers PAC spent on politics, a whopping 99.9% went to Democrats. The same pattern is true for the National Education Association, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Service Employees International Union, and the American Federation of Government Employees, all of which represent public sector workers.
Collectively, of the contributions made by these unions’ PACs, more than 95% went to support the Democratic Party.
One of the most significant issues with the Freedom Index is its inherent lack of objectivity.
The Freedom Index is based on the specific ideological beliefs of the John Birch Society, which prioritizes an interpretation of the Constitution that align with its conservative viewpoints. The criteria used to evaluate lawmakers are heavily influenced by the organization’s and local politicians political agenda rather than a neutral assessment of legislative actions.
The score doesn’t consider whether a bill ultimately becomes law, only how each legislator voted on specific key votes including amendments that do not pass. The particular local votes are cherry-picked by the John Birch Society, or worse, some local politician or political wonk. This raises questions about the credibility of the ratings and whether they provide a fair representation of other non-aligned politician’s overall performance.
Lawmakers who may take moderate or bipartisan approaches could be unjustly penalized if their actions do not align perfectly with John Birch Society’s rigid standards leading to an incomplete and misleading picture of political effectiveness.
While the Freedom Index gives high marks to votes that limit government and cut spending, representatives in the real world must weigh the needs of their unique districts. Sometimes that means supporting policies that benefit their local economies, even if it involves federal spending or a match which is especially true in Alaska. A one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t account for these often necessary regional priorities.
The selective focus of the Freedom Index gives more weight to certain types of issues, such as votes on sovereignty or regulatory actions, while often undervaluing other important areas like veterans’ support, rural development, or community safety initiatives. It missed the bigger picture of what legislators are actually accomplishing for their communities. Governing is not about the vote alone it should be about the community.
And this index can be manipulated. The Alaska bill to re-establish the citizen watchdog group (CACFA) to push back against federal overreach would seem like the ultimate barrier to federal overreach. Yet it wasn’t one of the bills evaluated by John Birch Society for the Alaska Freedom Index. Possibly it wasn’t included because Rep. David Eastman, the only 100% legislator on the Index, voted against it.
Allegedly it was one of Eastman‘s ardent supporters, Kassie Andrews, who submitted the bills used for the scorecard for Alaska legislators – she has publicly stated that she was the one.
She also included old legislation that some of the legislators weren’t around to vote for or against, as well as amendments that did not even pass.
This is typical of the way the Eastman support groups operate. He offers an amendment that does not pass for whatever reason (often just because he offered it) and then his support groups publicly excoriate those who voted against it. This is the biggest flaw in the Freedom Index.
The Index is an oversimplification of intricate policy matters into binary choices. It labels votes as either “freedom” or “anti-freedom.” This reductionist approach fails to capture the nuanced realities of governance, as well as the longer term strategy often involved in good policy making. Many legislative decisions involve complex trade-offs and require balancing competing interests values and priorities, often of two different communities in the same district.
By categorizing votes in such a simplistic manner, the Freedom Index undermines the importance of dialogue, compromise, and the understanding that good governance often involves difficult choices. .
By labeling lawmakers who do not align with its strict criteria as “unfreedom” supporters, the JBS cultivates an environment of distrust and animosity towards political opponents. This encourages even more radical positions among its supporters, pushing them to reject compromise altogether. The index exacerbates political polarization by labeling those that disagree with JBS’s interpretation of freedom as fundamentally un-American or illegitimate which further contributes to a political culture where cooperation is already difficult.
As a lawmaker strives to improve his Freedom Index ratings, he may feel compelled to adhere strictly to the JBS’s criteria, potentially leading to more rigid and uncompromising positions and an entire legislative body refusing to work with him. It creates an environment for him where compromise is viewed with skepticism, as he becomes more focused on his ratings than on being and effective legislator – in the military this is called “combat ineffective”.
Legislators frequently have to work across the aisle to get things done. This index doesn’t account for the value of compromise, even when they reflect well-thought-out policies or practical solutions. By scoring in a way that penalizes cooperation, the index sometimes discourages practical governance in favor of rigid ideology.
Lack of objectivity, oversimplification of complex issues, potential for promoting extremism, and implications for political polarization all suggest that the Freedom Index may do more harm than good. In a representative republic fostering dialogue understanding and collaboration among differing viewpoints is crucial. A rating system that diminishes these values, no matter which side of the political spectrum, ultimately undermines the very principles it seeks to uphold; especially true when it is manipulated by a local political group or politician.
While the Freedom Index is a useful tool for understanding a legislators viewpoint of limited government, it isn’t a complete measure of effectiveness or of the balanced work they do on behalf of their constituents. Not organic at all, it is a derived view, of a legislators body of work often influenced by local politics, or possibly the combat-ineffective politician.
Rep. Kevin McCabe represents District 30, Big Lake and north, and is a commercial airline pilot and military veteran.
As the White House tried to clean up President Biden’s mess, Donald Trump waited – you couldn’t say patiently.
“Just to clarify,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters Wednesday before fielding another half dozen questions about the fiasco, Biden “was not calling Trump supporters garbage.” She pointed to his statement posted on social media, his longstanding reputation for empathy, his oft-stated desire to lower the temperature.
“He does not view Trump supporters, or anybody who supports Trump as ‘garbage,’” Jean-Pierre asserted on a day the White House preferred to talk about good economic news or really anything else. After an hour, she hoped that what Republicans gleefully were calling “Garbage-gate” was over.
Then Trump landed in Green Bay, Wisconsin. He wore an orange vest, walked to a white garbage truck, and climbed into the passenger’s seat. “How do you like my garbage truck?” he asked reporters. “This truck is in honor of Kamala and Joe Biden.”
“I have to begin by saying, 250 million Americans are not garbage,” Trump said to open his Wisconsin rally as he walked on stage still wearing the Hi-Vis vest. Every majorpaper of record covered the stunt (though the press dutifully noted that he vastly overstated his support). The Internet went wild. Less than a week before the election, the garbage gaffe ripened. Trump had a feeling this would work.
A source close to the former president told RealClearPolitics that Trump came up with the idea while flipping between Vice President Kamala Harris’ speech on the Ellipse and a recording of Biden trying to denounce comedian Tony Hinchcliffe’s tasteless joke at Madison Square Garden. The insult comic called Puerto Rico “a floating island of garbage.” Biden brought up the bit during a call with Hispanic voters Tuesday but ended up saying “the only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters.”
The former president made a plan that very night. “It was all Donald Trump,” a senior campaign advisor told RCP. The next day, the garbage truck was waiting for him in Wisconsin. The implicit argument: Just like Hillary Clinton had infamously denounced Trump supporters as “deplorables,” Biden had just called them “garbage.” The White House disputes this characterization, of course, but the Trump campaign feels confident they have turned trash to treasure.
“Totally viral,” the advisor said of how the stunt was playing.
This is Corey Comperatore. He, like half of America, supported Trump. He died at a Trump rally using his body as a human shield to save the lives of his family.
It was also a return to form for the former president. Reasoned Brad Parscale, “if you’re explaining, you’re losing; if you’re entertaining, you’re winning.” During a recent Frontline interview, the former Trump campaign manager said that the reason he won in 2016, the reason he defeated Clinton, was because “Trump stopped being the explainer.” The garbage truck stunt followed the McDonald’s moment when the former president worked as a fry cook during a photo-op meant to call into question the Harris claim that she worked at that fast-food establishment in her youth.
Democrats were quick to point out that Trump is hardly blameless. He belittles his opponents with ease and has made a crusade against an ill-defined group that he calls “the enemy within” a hallmark of his campaign. On Wednesday, the anti-Trump Lincoln Project circulated a clip of the Republican at a Wisconsin rally in September insulting the Harris camp with similar language to words Biden allegedly used. “It’s the people that surround her, they’re scum and they want to take down our country,” Trump said of the vice president and her allies, not her supporters. “They are absolute garbage.”
For her part, the vice president tried to distance herself from Biden. “First of all,” she explained earlier on Wednesday, “he clarified his comments but let me be clear: I strongly disagree with any criticism of people based on who they vote for.” It was another mess, an unforced error, that the incumbent president had hoisted on her, and it fit a larger pattern.
While Joe Biden lives out the final days of his presidency, he keeps causing headaches. Before this fiasco, Biden’s praise of Ron DeSantis during hurricane season complicated Harris’ criticism of Florida’s Republican governor. The garbage gaffe calls to mind a warning that former President Barack Obama reportedly shared in private: “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to [mess] things up.”
While capable of touching displays of empathy, Biden has never been shy about his antipathy toward his opponents. He said Republicans who opposed mask mandates displayed “neanderthal thinking,”argued that their agenda was “semi-fascist,” and compared lawmakers who opposed his voting reform bill to racists segregationists like Bill Connor and Jefferson Davis.
And reporters are not immune from his characterizations: The president infamously referred to one Fox News correspondent as “a stupid son of a bitch.” He later apologized.
Often when Biden speaks off-the-cuff, the White House damage-control crews are dispatched to clean things up. Ahead of the midterm elections, for instance, Biden told RCP that he believed the election “easily could be illegitimate.” The next morning, then-White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the president was saying the opposite. At other times, Biden has seemingly endorsed regime change in Russia and deviated from decades of the so-called One China policy.
International controversy ensued, and each time, the White House walked back the comments. If Trump gets his way, they won’t have time to walk back his latest gaffe before the election.
This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
Republicans in Eagle River have filed a second complaint with the Alaska Public Offices Commission about the campaign of Sen. Kelly Merrick, who is a registered Republican, but one who is out of favor by many in her district.
The complaint says that Merrick made intentional errors on her campaign finance seven-day report, listing the occupation of a donor as “N/A” and the employer as “N/A.” The donation was more than $500, and Alaska Statute requires the principal occupation and employer for such donations. The complaint says that “N/A” could mean a number of things, such as “not applicable,” or “no answer.” It’s too vague and thus is not an acceptable term under state statute.
Merrick’s campaign also took cash donations from a Donna Phillips. The occupation of Phillips was listed as an email address.
Another set of contributions raised a red flag. Three people donated exactly $69 in cash on one day, an unusual amount. One person donated $69 in cash twice on that day. It appears the campaign was trying to conceal a donation of $138 by breaking it into two contributions, in order to come below reporting thresholds. The complaint says the commission should look into whether these three were legitimate donations to the Merrick campaign.
The fact that it’s Republicans who are are combing through Merrick’s reports is notable. Another Republican, Jared Goecker, has filed to run against Merrick, who is married to one of the most powerful union bosses in Alaska, and thus has been seen as hard to beat. But her votes and behavior in Juneau have raised concerns, and she has not received an endorsement from the Alaska Republican Party as a whole, although one of her two House districts gave her an endorsement. The other did not.
Merrick and Goecker are running for the four-year term to represent Eagle River in the Legislature. Also running is Lee Hammermeister, who is a Democrat.
The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability released a report today blasting the Federal Trade Commission and FTC Chair Lina Khan for exerting undue “Biden-Harris White House Influence and Sweeping Destruction of Agency Norms.”
The report finds that Khan betrayed the commission’s independent mission, overstepped her authority, trampled on the due process rights of regulated business and industries, upended the rule of law, and violated ethics standards to advance the Biden-Harris Administration’s agenda.
By shifting the FTC’s focus to implement leftist policies, the Commission under Chair Khan disregards American consumer interests and U.S. antitrust policy, the committee’s report said.
“Rather than fulfill her obligation to ensure the FTC adheres to its independent role, our investigation reveals that Chair Lina Khan abused her power and bent the knee to the Biden-Harris White House. During her tenure, Chair Khan abandoned agency norms, disregarded ethical standards, subverted due process rights by colluding with foreign regulatory regimes, and willingly became a political tool for the Biden-Harris Administration to carry out its ideological goals. It’s now clear that Chair Khan will stop at nothing to accomplish the radical left’s desired ends. If this conduct is allowed to continue, it will further undermine Americans’ confidence in the FTC’s role in protecting American consumers and the U.S. marketplace. Chair Khan’s term expired last month, and she should not be permitted to continue leading an independent agency,” said Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.).
Since June 2023, the Oversight Committee has conducted multiple transcribed interviews with top commission officials and requested documents and communications from the FTC to understand concerns related to abuses of power,collusion with foreign officials, improper conduct in the merger review process, and Khan’s recent participation in 2024 campaign events with Democrat candidates.
Rep. Mary Peltola of Alaska met with Khan several months ago and pressured her to oppose the merger of Kroger and Albertsons. The agency has since sued to stop the merger of the two grocers, which are only trying to stay competitive with major retailers like Costco and Amazon. Kroger has already said it will not close any stores, distribution centers or manufacturing facilities or lay off any frontline associates as a result of the merger. But Peltola and Khan are driven by AFL-CIO politics in opposing the merger.
Judges in three states are now considering the legal ramifications of the merger, ensuring a costly delay that will ultimately be passed down to consumers.
Chair Khan trampled on principles of due process, respect for the rule of law, and ethical standards to achieve her ideologically fueled ends at the FTC.
Chair Khan has forsaken Commission independence and bipartisanship to lead the Biden-Harris White House’s left-wing, whole-of-government campaign to reshape American antitrust and competition policy.
Chair Khan has swept aside principles, practices and policies of merger-review—ones that had served pro-consumer and pro-competitive interests for decades—to launch an intimidation campaign to chill mergers of all kinds.
On Chair Khan’s watch, the FTC has turned on American companies and turned to European authorities to achieve the Commission’s ends when FTC authorities under U.S. law have not supported Commission-desired outcomes.
Chair Khan has spearheaded partisan efforts to re-model U.S. antitrust authorities in the image of European laws designed to hurt U.S. companies’ ability to compete in foreign markets.
Chair Khan has orchestrated wholesale changes in FTC rulemaking practices and policies—enabling extreme Commission overreach at the expense of consumers, regulated businesses, and the public in general.
Chair Khan has permitted the White House to use the Commission as a shill for Biden-Harris 2024 election interests through Commission leadership of the sham Biden-Harris “Strike Force on Unfair and Illegal Pricing.”
Chair Khan has sidelined career FTC staff, collapsed their morale, triggered an exodus of critical employees, and destroyed career staff’s confidence in the honesty and integrity of Commission leadership.
How do you explain a judge like Superior Court Judge Adolf Zeman? How can he justify a decision to overturn the elected representatives of the people, and outlaw a correspondence program relied on my tens of thousands of Alaska parents? He claims to be following the Constitution, but that’s nonsense. The delegates to the constitutional convention left a clear record of their intentions, which he chose to ignore.
Behind his black robe disguise Zeman is just another politician. He has his ideas about public policy, but instead of running for office he just issues orders.
His power grab is on appeal, and the Alaska Supreme Court will have the final say. If the people of Alaska vote to remove Zeman from office, they will send a powerful message to the court.
Interpreting the Constitution is the court’s job, but it needs to be deferential to the will of the people. Unless there is a clear violation of the constitution, it needs to show restraint, and allow the political process to function.
Otherwise, we don’t live in a constitutional republic, we are subjects in a judicial tyranny.
Vote no on the retention of Adolf Zeman. If he wants to decide public policy let him run for office.
Fritz Pettyjohn’s first venture in politics was working for Goldwater for President in 1964. He served in the Alaska Legislature in the 1980s and writes the blog ReaganProject.com.
Alaska’s congressional race has been moved to “tilt Republican” by Inside Elections. Earlier, the election analysis organization had the race between incumbent Democrat Mary Peltola and Republican Nick Begich in the “toss up” lane.
“Peltola may be the most endangered Democratic incumbent on the map,” wrote Nathan Gonzalez of Inside Elections. If it’s a race that is driven by national issues, “she will likely lose.”
As conservatives break tradition and vote early in Alaska — and about 45,000 voters have already cast their ballots — polling and analysis companies can look at who has voted and what their voter registration is, as well as how many times they’ve voted in the past.
What the analysts are seeing shows that more conservative voters are motivated in Alaska to bank their votes early. Some 50% of the early votes are being cast by those over the age of 62, an important number in Alaska, as weather gets more wintery.
Voting becomes the ultimate poll in any race. However, it doesn’t yet look like either Peltola or Begich will win outright in the ranked-choice scenario.
“Private polling shows the Republican with a narrow advantage in a simulated version of Alaska’s unique ranked choice voting system, but neither candidate looks likely to win outright due to the presence of two minor candidates on the ballot,” Gonzalez wrote.
Earlier this week, Peltola was placed by Cook Political Report into the top-10 most vulnerable incumbent list, and Roll Call gave her the same bleak news — she is in trouble. She has been caught in numerous lies, including taking credit for the Willow project being unfrozen by the Biden Administration. President Biden said that the reason he unfroze the project is that his lawyers told him he would lose in court.
Peltola endorsed Joe Biden for president, but now won’t say who she will vote for, as she tries to appear moderate.
“Alaskans are rallying behind Nick Begich, who enters the final stretch with strong momentum to win Alaska’s House seat and grow the Republican majority. Despite massively outspending Begich with false attacks, Mary Peltola has faltered as voters evaluated her failed, out-of-touch record of backing Biden, Harris and the radical Left,” said NRCC spokesperson Ben Petersen.
In 2024, ConocoPhillips has already invested more than $2 billion in Alaska projects, with two months to go, surpassing 2023’s total capital expenditures.
In the third quarter of 2024 alone, ConocoPhillips Alaska invested $691 million in capital in Alaska.
“Continued progress on projects like Willow and Nuna, along with our agreement to acquire certain Chevron oil and gas assets in Alaska, underscores our commitment to Alaska and demonstrates the effectiveness of the stable fiscal regime,” said Erec Isaacson, president of ConocoPhillips Alaska.
The investment creates jobs and promotes economic opportunities for Alaskans, Isaacson added.
Since 2007, ConocoPhillips Alaska has incurred approximately $45 billion in taxes and royalties to the State of Alaska and the federal government. Of that amount, about $35 billion went directly to the state. In that same period, ConocoPhillips Alaska’s earnings were over $27 billion.
ConocoPhillips Alaska reported a net income of $267 million in the third quarter of 2024.
During the third quarter, ConocoPhillips Alaska incurred an estimated $341 million in taxes and royalties, which includes $251 million to the State of Alaska and $90 million to the federal government.
The question for pro-lifers here in Alaska is what are our options? Do we attempt to out-extreme the left (difficult to do) on abortion, or do we find an alternate path, perhaps one given us on a silver platter by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in his 2022 Dobbs opinion.
A review of our current situation is in order.
The Alaska Supreme Court found a constitutional right to abortion sitting in the Alaska Constitution. It was disguised as a right to privacy but is there nonetheless (according to the Justices). Their opinion was an utter and complete victory for the pro-aborts, to the extent that they have so far refused to float constitutional amendments on abortion for state elections like they have done in multiple states since 2022.
These initiatives work really well in turning out Democrats, particularly their base of affluent white female uber-liberals (AWFULs). But the pro-abortion victory was so complete, so overwhelming, that they haven’t bothered doing this up here.
The solution according to Minnery? Float a similar pro-life amendment via ballot initiative. Eastman disagrees, which is what triggered the round of arm waving, chair throwing, and finger pointing.
I tend to agree with Eastman’s logic, though with a different approach. I attempted to contact Minnery while writing this piece. The call was not returned.
The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives. (Pp. 8–79.)
Note that it does not mention state courts, or any of the black robed wannabee Brennans or Blackmuns populating those bodies. It specifically mentions the people and their elected representatives.
This means legislatures and governors.
Essentially, the SCOTUS just rewrote every single judicial opinion defending abortion at the state level, throwing the entire mess back into the laps of the various state legislatures, which is where it belonged in the first place.
What would I do? I would pass out of the Legislature whatever pro-life legislation that makes sense. And no, it’s not going to be a complete ban on abortion, nor will it be a complete free for all to abort right up until the moment of birth or a little while after.
It would be something reasonable, something in between, something that takes into account the very real fears and concerns (Democrats make a living out of stoking fears of AWFULs), while addressing the rights of all three people involved: mom, dad and the kid.
Once it is passed, it will be appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court, which will throw it out based on the court’s “privacy = abortion” opinion.
At that point, the State takes it to federal court and appeals using Alito’s precise language, pointing out that the Alaska Supremes are neither elected nor representatives. And, if necessary, appeal it right back to the SCOTUS to make sure Alito meant what he wrote.
This will be a whole lot more productive than another round of who’s more pro-life than I am, or you are. And it might even get us closer to an actual solution that we all can live with.
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.
