Wednesday, May 13, 2026
Home Blog Page 848

Follow the money: Three people gave Bill Walker campaign $100,000 each, but that’s not all that is in the fundraising report

(Note this story has been updated to reflect that the donation from one person for $100,000 was not from a CNN reporter, although the financial report from the Walker campaign says it is.)

The big money is in the Walker for governor race this year. Really big money.

Greg Orman of Kansas wrote a $100,000 check to the campaign of Bill Walker for governor.

Orman, who was previously a Democrat, ran as an independent for U.S. Senate in 2014, losing to Sen. Pat Roberts that year.

Orman also donated an opinion poll to Walker, which was valued at $28,500, for a total of $128,500, making him the biggest single donor to Walker, in the former governor’s quest to become a two-time governor.

Orman is a major dark money player in Unite America, one of the main political operations that brought the controversial Ranked Choice Voting to Alaska with Ballot Measure 2.

Between 2000 and 2018, Orman contributed 20 times to candidates, with 16 of those donations to Democratic candidates, including to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign and to Al Franken’s US Senate campaign. One donation was to a Republican candidate in 2010 and three donations went to nonaligned candidates. Orman also donated to the Kansas Democratic State Committee in 2009, according to InfluenceWatch.org.

Then there was Jason Carroll, a New York-based investor. He donated $100,000 to Walker’s campaign.

Kathryn Murdoch also donated $100,000 to Walker’s campaign. She is described by InfluenceWatch.org as a left-leaning political activist and donor to liberal causes. She’s the wife of James Murdoch, the liberal son of News Corporation co-founder Rupert Murdoch. Along with her husband, she is co-founder and president of the Quadrivium Foundation, which funds Unite America.

Murdoch also sits on the board of Unite America. She was formerly the director of strategy and communications for the Clinton Climate Initiative, and donated heavily to the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, InfluenceWatch reports.

Between those three donations, Walker banked in $328,500 for his campaign to retake the Governor’s Office. Those checks represent over 36% of the $831,000 he reported on his 30-day report to the Alaska Public Offices Commission. He had $751,299 cash on hand.

The donation amounts to candidates for Alaska’s public offices have increased after the courts struck down Alaska’s severe contribution limits. Candidates can now accept an unlimited amount, and Walker is proving how it can be done. Many of the donors to Walker’s campaign are coming in with large checks.

Walker’s law partner Robin Brena, for example, who has advocated for higher taxes for years, gave $25,000 to the Walker campaign, while Laura and John Arnold of Houston gave a combined $20,000. The Arnolds run a liberal foundation that focuses on criminal justice reform and strongly backed and advised the failed Alaska experiment in catch-and-release known as SB 91. Walker championed SB 91 and signed it into law; Dunleavy signed a bill that got rid of the Walker crime spree.

The Walker campaign’s 30-day report with APOC can be found at this link.

The report shows he has been frugal with his funds, perhaps saving them for the battle that he will wage after the primary. While he raised over $831,000, he only spent $37,348.

By comparison, Gov. Mike Dunleavy raised $761,669, Dunleavy had few checks larger than $2,500, with the notable large donation coming from his wealthy brother, Frances Dunleavy, for $200,000, and a $100,000 check from Alaska businessman Bob Penney, who backed Dunleavy in his first campaign for governor. Dunleavy’s 30-day report can be found at this link.

Dunleavy has spent more than Walker on his reelection, paying out $713,754 in campaign expenses. His total income has been $1,031,601.92.

Les Gara, the Democrat who is running for governor and is endorsed by the Alaska Democratic Party, reported $939,091 in his 30-day report, mostly from Alaska donors and with no notably large donations, except $16,500 from Robin Brena. He spent $283,215.

Charlie Pierce raised $64,193, and Chris Kurka raised $12,423. None of the other 10 candidates raised any more than $3,000.

The 30-day reports show what the campaigns have raised and spent Feb. 2 through July 15.

Who is the favorite governor in America?

Who is America’s most popular governor? Wyoming Republican Mark Gordon has a 74% approval rating, as does Vermont Republican Phil Scott, according to the quarterly poll by Morning Consult polling firm. Those two governors hold the top two spots for popularity, followed closely by two other Republican governors, Charlie Baker of Massachusetts and Larry Hogan of Maryland, with 73% and 70% respectively.

South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem has a 59% approval rating among voters in her state.

Gov. Mike Dunleavy, the Alaska Republican governor running for reelection, came in with a 52% approval rating, just one point below how voters in Florida rated Gov. Ron DeSantis and how voters in Virginia ranked Gov. Glenn Youngkin, both with 53% approval. They were in the middle of the pack. Just 32% of Alaska voters disapprove of Dunleavy’s performance.

Among the most unpopular governors are Democratic Gov. Kate Brown of Oregon and Democrat Gov. David Ige of Hawaii, who have respective 55% and 49% disapproval ratings. 

Dunleavy has slipped in popularity since the poll was conducted last winter, when he enjoyed a 57% approval rating and was the 16th most popular governor in the country. He is now the 27th most popular.

Read the Morning Consult poll results here. 

(Note: The chart at the top of the page shows favorable in green and unfavorable in red.)

‘Brandon Falls’ briefly added to Google Maps, marking spot where Biden fell from his bike; Big Tech quickly deleted it

A tongue-in-cheek historical landmark dubbed “Brandon Falls” was briefly added to Google Maps on Tuesday.

That’s the spot in Delaware where President Joe Biden famously fell off his bike close to his home in Rehoboth Seaside in June. He had stopped his bike, but was unable to pull his foot out of the bike’s pedal strap, and keeled over in front of a gaggle of reporters.

While not an officially sanctioned historical location, Google allows users to create public landmarks, which someone did in order to have fun at the president’s expense. Google quickly deleted the historic designation, but not before the landmark had had over 80 public reviews.

Brandon is the popular nickname for Biden, launched by his critics last year after a NASCAR reporter mistakenly took a crowd’s chant of “F– Joe Biden” for “Let’s Go Brandon!” for the Sparks 300 race winner Brandon Brown at the Talladega Superspeedway, whom she was interviewing. The crowd was actually jeering Biden, and the reporter’s misinterpretation went viral on social media.

“Let’s Go Brandon!” hit popular culture in a big way over the past eight months. Now, the spot where Biden keeled over has become a local pilgrimage destination where people are doing the “Biden Bike Challenge” by taking pictures of themselves prone on the spot where Biden fell.

Dan Fagan: Palin made a false accusation against me. I’m setting the record straight — there was no crush

By DAN FAGAN

Sarah Palin claims she once had to “rebuff” me over a crush I had on her. She also says I “turned on her” as a result. 

Here’s what Palin said on a local podcast this week: 

“He was at my home, hanging out with me. It’s almost like he had a crush on me for many years, um huh. And then though, when he was kind of rebuffed, watch this, this is going to be the takeaway for Fagan, he kind of turned on me. Boo hoo. “ 

This is a serious accusation. In order to “rebuff” someone they would first have to make a move. The word rebuff is defined as rejecting someone in an abrupt manner.

Palin is accusing me of hitting on her, a married woman.  

I know Palin knows she’s never “rebuffed” me over the imaginary crush she dreamed up. 

Palin is a serial liar and a con artist. Her unhealthy political ambition and her lust for fame and fortune has seared her conscience. 

I often wondered if Palin believed her own lies. The human heart is deceptive. After this rebuffing accusation, I now realize she knows she’s lying. 

Palin owes it to me to say when and where this rebuffing happened. What exactly did I say that made her think I had a crush on her?  What did she say to rebuff me? 

It’s convenient for Palin to accuse me of hitting on a married woman and then blaming her rejection of me on my criticizing her dismal record as governor. 

I’ve been a Palin critic for years. Especially after she went to war with Alaska’s oil and gas industry. She signed the largest tax increase in state history. Alaska’s budget is morbidly obese today because of the truck loads of cash her tax raising transferred out of the private sector and into government.

Why is Palin just now blaming my criticism of her on rebuffing my unrequited love?  

Something else Palin says is telling. She pauses and interjects “…watch this, this is going to be the takeaway for Fagan.” 

What did she mean by takeaway? It’s as though Palin is admitting, I’ve concocted this rebuffing narrative to discredit Fagan.  

Maybe Senators Lisa Murkowski, Dan Sullivan, and Gov. Mike Dunleavy should blame unreciprocated love as a motivation of my criticism. 

There’s no one I critique more than the tyrannically bent Anchorage Assemblyman Christopher Constant. Mr. Constant, I do not have a crush on you. No rebuffing needed.  

Palin is known for often saying odd things. But this is a serious time in which we live, and we need sober leadership. Alaskans get only one representative in Congress.

We are at war. Marxists, swamp creatures, and media elites are firebombing all that is good about America. Now is not the time to vote for childish, stars in their eyes, kooky drama queens like Palin.

Dan Fagan hosts a morning drive talk show on Newsradio 650, KENI between 5:30 and 9 a.m.

Palin goes ‘me too,’ accusing talk show host Dan Fagan of having crush on her that she had to ‘rebuff’

On an Alaska podcast this week, congressional candidate Sarah Palin made an extraordinary accusation. She said talk show host Dan Fagan, who has the top-rated talk show in Alaska on 650 KENI, had a crush on her for many years and that he became a critic of hers after she rebuffed him.

Fagan, on his daily show on Tuesday, took strong exception to that statement, saying it was outlandish. Fagan has been a harsh critic of Palin, focusing on her lies, her calculated political and entertainment careers, and her overall poor understanding of policy.

But having an unrequited crush? That’s what she said on the podcast:

“He was at my home hanging out with me. It’s almost like he had a crush on me for many years … mmmm hmmm????” she said to the podcast host. Then her voice took a different tone: “And then, though, when he was kind of rebuffed … Watch this, this is gonna be the takeaway for Fagan, he kind of turned on me. Boo hoo.”

Listen to the statement here:

It’s a matter of character for Fagan. Palin was accusing him of making overtures toward her when she was a married woman. Todd Palin filed for divorce in 2019 after 31 years of marriage and she is now dating a former NHL hockey player, Ron Duguay.

Fagan has issued a statement:

“Sarah Palin is hyper-ambitious, do-whatever-it-takes-to-win con artist and a serial liar. It’s not surprising she would claim she ‘rebuffed’ my unrequited crush and I ‘turned on her’ as a result,” Fagan said. “I’ve had no romantic feelings for Palin. She knows it. She just made this up to discredit me because I had the audacity to criticize her dismal record as governor.”

Fagan has also been a harsh critic of Gov. Mike Dunleavy, while during Dunleavy’s first run for governor, Fagan had higher hopes for the former school teacher from Wasilla. He has harshly criticized former Mayor Ethan Berkowitz and Assemblyman Chris Constant. He criticizes Sen. Lisa Murkowski routinely, and also expresses his disappointment in Sen. Dan Sullivan at times.

Palin is not the first to make the “he had a crush on me” accusation against a critic. New York Democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has said that Republicans are “sexually frustrated” and critics “want to date her,” after she was mocked for partying with her boyfriend in Florida without a mask, after supporting mask mandates back in her home state.

Palin is running against Nick Begich, a Republican who had announced he was running for Congress in October. Palin filed on Aril 1, two weeks after the death of Congressman Don Young. Forty-seven other candidates also filed to run for the spot, but the final candidates to finish out Don Young’s term in office are Palin, Begich, and Democrat Mary Peltola, who will appear on the special general election ballot on the reverse side of the regular primary ballot on Aug. 16.

Flip: Palin is now in favor of school vouchers

Last week, Must Read Alaska ran a story based on 2008 documentation of Sarah Palin’s views on vouchers that would allow parents to move children to private schools, if they so chose.

The Palin of 2008 was a candidate for vice president and her record showed that, as governor of Alaska, she not only opposed school vouchers but also opposed changing the Alaska Constitution to allow for them. She said they are unconstitutional.

Today, as a candidate for Congress, Palin supports vouchers, according to her website.

Her opposition to vouchers was well-documented in 2008 and was written about extensively by the media, leading the National Education Association to praise her track record, not only for vouchers but for making big funding increases to public education while serving as Alaska’s governor from 2007 to 2009.

Nick Begich, who is Palin’s Republican opponent, has long supported school vouchers. He is a product of a private Christian school education, through 12th grade, but his family did not use vouchers, as they were not available when he was in school. Vouchers allow families to move their children to non-government schools and have the money follow the child.

Begich believes that school funding should follow the child and be able to be used for both faith-based or private education.

Drone footage of Centennial Campground shows orderly situation, as Salvation Army steps in to help the homeless

The Municipality of Anchorage has accepted help from the Salvation Army to provide services at Centennial Campground, where about 200 people who are currently homeless are living in established campsites, complete with running water, toilets, garbage services, security, and municipal staff helping solve problems as they arise.

A small number of those living at Centennial Campground were previously housed in the Sullivan Arena, which had been commandeered by former Mayor Ethan Berkowitz, who converted it into a congregate shelter that was to assist with physical distancing in the nonprofit shelters, when Covid was raging through the state.

Salvation Army will be providing on-site client care coordination. Over the next couple of days, the Salvation Army will begin working with other nonprofits to coordinate the many services being offered there, such as meals, case management, donations, supplies, and more. Anchorage Parks and Recreation will continue to provide security and a team of on-site staff to ensure coordination with the municipality.

Several leftist members of the Anchorage Assembly have called the conditions at the campground a “humanitarian crisis.” They have blamed the Bronson Administration for what they say is an all-time high number of people living on the streets.

The Bronson Administration differed in its views of the situation: “As someone who has visited Centennial almost every day since the Sullivan closed, the tremendous improvements over other unsanctioned sites in Anchorage are obvious. I truly believe we are at our best when we set aside politics and work together, and I’m grateful for the many stakeholders who share that vision,” Bronson said.

About 60 of the people at Centennial Campground came from the Sullivan Arena, which closed as an overnight mass shelter on July 1. The remainder came from camp sites tucked around in fire-prone areas around the wooded areas in Anchorage. The illegal campers in the greenbelts and forests were all given other options, such as the Aviator Hotel, Gospel Rescue Mission, and other shelters, but they all chose to go to the Centennial Campground, rather than traditional shelters, officials said.

Assembly members Kameron Perez-Verdia, Felix Rivera and Daniel Volland have proposed even more expenditures than the tens of millions already spent by the Assembly on failed projects like the Golden Lion Hotel, which the Assembly helped former Mayor Berkowitz buy, to be used as a drug rehabilitation center. That controversial purchase put children at a daycare at the nearby Lubavitch Jewish Center in danger.

The new proposed Assembly expenditures include $20 million for these items:

1)    $500K to remodel and immediately open up 60 rental units

2)    $2M to fund emergency shelter needs through the end of 2022

3)    $1.5M for outreach services

4)    $3.4M to complete capital funding for the Guest House opening up 130 units

5)    $12.6M for purchase of another hotel to open up to 120 units. 

According to Assembly Member Kameron Perez-Verdia, “Our plan to address to the current crisis is informed by years of community work to develop a comprehensive approach to address homelessness, known as the Anchored Home plan. Our proposal leverages public-private partnerships to address the immediate crisis and build for the future so we don’t end up in this untenable situation again.”

Must Read Alaska flew a drone camera through the campground to ground-truth the claims of a “humanitarian crisis” and provide this picture of what the campground looked like on Monday:

Mayor vetoes Assembly’s ordinance that was designed to kick him out of office; they’ll override

Mayor Dave Bronson vetoed AO 60, the ordinance designed by leftist members of the Assembly to give themselves a fast-track way to get rid of the mayor if he crosses an indeterminate line they define as “breach of the public trust.”

“Since its adoption in 1975, the Anchorage Charter largely preserves to the voters the power to install and remove government officials who serve in the highest levels of Municipal government.  A very narrow carve-out from that retained power is found in Charter Section 7.01, which provides that an elective office holder may be removed from office, by means other than the ballot box, if that office holder has breached the public trust,” the mayor’s press release said.

When drafting the Charter, the Charter Commission recognized that there needs to be a procedure through which a determination can be made as to whether a “breach of the public trust” has occurred. 

Consequently, the Charter requires the Assembly to develop such a procedure “including provision for notice, a complete statement of the charge, a public hearing conducted by an impartial hearing officer, and judicial review.” 

The Charter does not authorize the Assembly to create additional substantive offenses for which an elected official may be removed from office. Nor does it authorize the Assembly to violate other Charter provisions or otherwise act unconstitutionally, the mayor said in his veto message.

Almost certainly the Assembly leftist leadership has the votes to override the veto and this matter will end up in court to determine if there has been an overreach of power by the Assembly into the authority of the Executive Branch and the people themselves, who elect the mayor.

“I am aware that Assembly members have used this Ordinance as a vehicle to try to send chills through the current administration, and that some members have publicly acknowledged that the Ordinance was introduced as a means to erect boundaries intended to circumscribe the legitimate exercise of executive power. I have heard the arguments and discussions that were presented for and against the ordinance, and well understand the disdain that was repeatedly expressed during public testimony.  I sympathize with the public’s frustration, however, this is not a reason for my decision to veto this legislation. Nor do I veto this Ordinance because the optics are bad or because other elected officials sometimes act in bad faith. I do not veto because the Ordinance arises from a partisan effort to attack the executive branch and certain policies with which various Assembly members disagree.  To the contrary, I veto AO 2022-60(S), As Amended because it creates specific conflicts with the Municipal Charter, and is therefore unconstitutional.”

The conflicts with Municipal Charter include the following, as described by the Bronson Administration:

Inconsistent Assertions/Definitions with the use of “breach of public trust”

  • The Ordinance crosses the line by stating that a breach of the public trust could happen regardless if the failure to execute a directive is substantial or insubstantial or if the directive for the theoretical mayor to follow is unconstitutional. 
  • The Ordinance states that different conduct is determined for different officials which reveals that it is impractical, and not merely just for of breaches of the public trust. The threshold for the theoretical mayor is not the same for an Assembly member or member of the School Board.  
  • The Ordinance is illogical and impulsive when it defines specific conduct as a breach of the public trust only when committed by specified elected officials but not others. The constitutional requirements of equal protection cannot be ignored.  

Delegation of Power Conflict with Municipal Attorney

  • The Ordinance goes against Municipal Charter that states that the municipal attorney “shall advise and assist the municipal government on legal matters”. This Ordinance is in conflict with Charter Section 5.04 and the separation of powers doctrine.
  • I have no doubt that the Assembly may hire its own counsel to provide it with advice when it is carrying out its own duties. What it may not do is require that the Municipal Attorney stand aside while some outside counsel is arbitrarily substituted for the Municipal Attorney for the purpose of reviewing an accusation prepared by either the Board of Ethics or the Assembly.
  • It might be argued that some procedures are needed to address situations in which a Municipal Attorney has a conflict of interest. However, the Ordinance does not deal with instances in which there is a conflict of interest, but rather merely assigns to the Assembly the power to hire an attorney of its choosing to substitute for the Municipal Attorney. That delegation of power is in conflict with Charter Section 5.04. 

Inconsistent Amendments

  • Heightened due process considerations introduced by Assembly members in this Ordinance are inconsistent with the Assembly amending current Code to reduce the vote to submit an accusation from two-thirds to a simple majority.  

The Assembly has ignored its obligation under Charter Section 7.01 for 47 years. Clearly, where the Assembly leadership continually reports to the press that they have no intention to actually use this Ordinance any time soon, there is no basis upon which the Assembly can assert that there is a pressing need to get this legislation into Code, or to continue to be divisive in the process.  The Assembly needs to step back and critically examine their effort, taking whatever additional time may be necessary to develop an ordinance that fully complies with the Charter.  After 47 years, that amount of time will be insignificant by comparison.

Americans trust armed citizens more than law enforcement, according to new poll

By CASEY HARPER | THE CENTER SQUARE

Americans trust armed citizens more than law enforcement to stop mass shooters, according to a new poll.

Convention of States Action, along with the Trafalgar Group, released the poll Monday, which showed that 41.8% of surveyed voters “believe that an armed citizen would be their best protection if they were caught in a mass shooting event.”

Only 25.1% say local police would be their best protection while 10.3% said federal agents. About a quarter of those surveyed said “none of the above.”

The poll found that 62.2% of those surveyed “are not confident their local law enforcement and government officials could identify and and stop a violent person before they started a mass shooting.”

The survey comes on the heels of the tragic shooting in Uvalde, Texas, where law enforcement has been heavily criticized for taking more than an hour to confront the shooter inside an elementary school.

“Americans watched in horror as an active shooter was permitted to rampage through a school while the police stood outside and did absolutely nothing,” said Mark Meckler, president of Convention of States Action. “Over and over again, citizens are given the clear message that – when it comes to protecting loved ones – you’re on your own. At the same time, we’re told guns are the problem and we should give up our right to self-defense.”

The survey queried more than 1,000 likely 2022 voter July 7-10.

Meanwhile, a shooting at an Indiana shopping mall over the weekend left at least three dead and 2 wounded but was cut short when what authorities called an armed “good samaritan” killed the gunman. Other instances like these have also ended mass shootings around the country.

“We do know that someone we are calling the “Good Samaritan” was able to shoot the assailant and stop further bloodshed,” Greenwood Mayor Mark Meyers said. “This person saved lives tonight. On behalf of the city of Greenwood, I am grateful for his quick action and heroism in this situation.”

This story appeared first at The Center Square, a conservative news service, and is used with permission.