
Fundraising in Anchorage Assembly campaigns has dropped off a cliff
Mar. 6—With less than a month until voting closes in Anchorage's municipal elections, the competitive frenzy and lavish spending surrounding district-level races in recent years are mostly absent. Donors are spending a fraction of what they did in the 2022 and 2023 cycles. And in several cases, candidates are functionally running unopposed.
Election packets will be mailed to voters on March 11, and ballots must be cast in person or postmarked by April 1. Half of the Assembly's 12 seats will be decided, and with just two incumbents running, at least four members elected this spring will be new to the body.
In spite of the stakes, the most recent round of campaign finance reports published by the Alaska Public Offices Commission paints a very different picture from those of recent years.
Campaign money in the 2022 and 2023 election cycles was, by local standards, off the charts. That was in part because of a uniquely contentious political phase coming out of the pandemic lockdowns, the election of Mayor Dave Bronson and clashes between the Assembly and Bronson administration during unruly, packed public meetings. The other factor at play was a 2021 federal court decision striking down the state's individual campaign contributions, undamming a reservoir of political spending. In 2024, there was a mayor's race and subsequent runoff between Bronson and Mayor Suzanne LaFrance that replicated many of the same dynamics, but no Assembly seats were on the ballot.
This year, just a fraction of the money raised in many district-level races has been brought in. What's more, several races are significantly lopsided in terms of campaign resources and operations, with one candidate doing all the fundraising while their rivals are — in some cases — mounting no visible campaign at all.
One example of this year's trend is in West Anchorage. By this point in the 2023 campaign, eventual winner Anna Brawley had raised nearly $69,000 against her main rival's $64,552 in what was one of that year's most competitive races. This year, incumbent Kameron Perez-Verdia, seeking a third term, has raised $52,468, according to his latest APOC disclosure. Neither of the two other candidates who filed for that seat, Jonathan Duckworth and Amie Steen, reported any fundraising to APOC, nor do either of them have campaign websites set up.
The dynamic is the same in East Anchorage and South Anchorage, the two most expensive district races in 2022 and 2023, respectively, as well as in the Midtown district.
In 2022, the contest between incumbent Forrest Dunbar and Bronson-aligned challenger Stephanie Taylor racked up close to a half-million dollars, a record for an Assembly race. This year in East Anchorage, though there are still weeks to go, first-time candidate Yarrow Silvers reported $33,405 in donations to her campaign. Neither of her challengers, Angela Frank or John Stiegele, filed campaign reports.
South Anchorage saw the most expensive race in the 2023 cycle between Zac Johnson and Rachel Ries. This year, just one candidate, Keith McCormick, has mounted a visible campaign, raising $21,048 according to his latest APOC filing. His challenger, Darin Colbry, reported no fundraising and doesn't have a campaign website.
And in Midtown, where there is no incumbent candidate, first-time candidate Erin Baldwin Day, a community organizer and policy advocate, has raised close to $40,000 from a mix of liberal-leaning politicos, union political action groups, and current Assembly members. Running against her is Don Smith, who represented South Anchorage on the Assembly between 1975 and 1985, but has no evident campaign fundraising or spending so far this year.
Money does not necessarily win local political races. But particularly in low turnout municipal races lacking an incumbent who has name recognition, it can play a big role drawing votes.
At this point the most competitive Assembly seat is shaping up to be in downtown Anchorage, between the Daniels: Daniel Volland, the incumbent, and Daniel George, a Realtor with a background in Republican state and congressional politics.
By Feb. 28, Volland raised $37,405 from a mix of elected officials, small donors, family members, and sizable contributions from organized labor groups.
George raised about half of that, $18,131. However, his donors represent an unusual coalition to support the more conservative candidate in what is typically Anchorage's most liberal voting district. George's most recent fundraiser on March 3 was hosted by prior elected officials spanning the political spectrum, from previous Assembly members like Sheila Selkregg and John Weddleton to prominent local conservatives such as recent Anchorage first lady Deb Bronson and former Republican state Sen. Anna MacKinnon. Among George's donors are several vocal neighborhood and zoning advocates, as well.
A third candidate, Nicolas Danger, has not reported any fundraising.
In Eagle River, Jared Goecker, who ran unsuccessfully to replace Republican state Sen. Kelly Merrick, reported raising $6,264, including a contribution from the Alaska Republican Party. Challenger Kyle Walker reported raising $1,490 during February from four donations. A third candidate, David Littleton, reported nothing to APOC.
Campaign strategy has shifted in recent years, as Anchorage voters and candidates have grown accustomed to ballots arriving to them in the mail weeks before they have to be returned. In recent cycles, candidates have sat on their war-chests until roughly when ballots begin arriving in peoples' mailboxes, then blitzed potential voters' with direct mail and digital ads during the small window when many people have newly started tuning into the looming election.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Iran's nuclear programme, Netanyahu's age-old obsession
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's nearly 20-year-old threat to strike Iran came true on Friday, as US President Donald Trump warned Tehran of further "brutal" attacks if it refuses to negotiate. In its largest military action against Iran to date, Israel's strikes hit about 100 targets including nuclear facilities and military command centres, and killed the armed forces' chief, top nuclear scientists and other senior figures. The strikes came as the United States and Iran were due to meet in Oman Sunday to pick up negotiations towards an agreement on the Islamic republic's nuclear programme. "We are fairly close to a pretty good agreement," Trump told reporters on Thursday, hours before news broke of the Israeli attacks. "I don't want them going in, because I think it would blow it", Trump added, speaking of the Israelis. But on Friday, Trump seemed unbothered by Israel's action, and on his Truth Social platform urged Iran to make a deal. "There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end," he wrote. - Timing 'makes sense'- Netanyahu, who has always scorned talks with Iran, paid no heed to Trump's original warning and took advantage of the seismic changes in the Middle East since the start of the war in Gaza in October 2023. "I don't know what kind of understanding there was between Israel and the US but I doubt Israel would do this if the US told it not to," Menachem Merhavy, an Iran expert at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, told AFP. Merhavy said that the timing of the attack "makes sense because Israel has been clipping the wings of Iran for the last year and a half", in actions against Tehran-aligned groups and proxies in the region, many of whom Israel has significantly weakened. But Netanyahu's obsession with Iran goes back much further than the ongoing Gaza war, sparked by an unprecedented attack by Tehran-backed Palestinian group Hamas. After Iran's former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad caused international uproar in 2005 when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map", Netanyahu -- then an opposition leader following his first term as premier in 1996-1999 -- called Tehran's nuclear programme "a serious threat for the future". He said at the time Israel "must do everything" to keep Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb, even if it meant striking the country's nuclear facilities as Israel had in Iraq in 1981. Iran has consistently denied seeking atomic weapons, but after his return to power in 2009, Netanyahu repeatedly dismissed Tehran's assurances that its nuclear programme was meant for civilian purpose only, and advocated a "military option". Netanyahu called the UN Security Council's 2015 approval of an agreement with world powers lifting sanctions in exchange for curbs on Iran's nuclear activities a "historic mistake". In 2018, he applauded Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the agreement, effectively scrapping it. Iran's reaction was to gradually abandon its commitments, enriching uranium to levels close to weapons-grade material and in unprecedented quantities. This gave Netanyahu a justification to keep up the fight against Iran's nuclear programme. - 'Reshape the Middle East' - All the while, Israel's Mossad spy agency worked in secret to undermine Iran's nuclear programme. Since the start of the Gaza war, Netanyahu has said on several occasions he was seeking to "reshape the Middle East". In late 2024, Israel dealt a hard blow to Iran's so-called "axis of resistance", by crippling Lebanese armed group Hezbollah. The fall of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, another Iranian ally, helped cement the regional dominance of Israel -- the Middle East's only, if undeclared, nuclear power. But it was an Israeli response to 200 Iranian missiles in October 2024 that "changed the balance of power" between the two foes, according to statements at the time by then defence minister Yoav Gallant, after a series of Israeli strikes inside Iran -- a rare direct confrontation. In February, Netanyahu told US Secretary of State Marco Rubio that with the Trump administration's support "I have no doubt that we can and will finish the job". Danny Citrinowicz, of the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies, told AFP that Trump most likely viewed Israel as "serving his interests". "Trump really thinks that as long as Iran is weaker, he will be able to achieve a deal on the nuclear file," said Citrinowicz. Holly Dagres, an Iran expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, warned that "if the Trump administration somehow thinks it's going to be having a sixth round of talks with the Iranians in Oman on Sunday, then it truly doesn't understand the Islamic republic and how it operates." mj-reg/lba/jd/ami


Bloomberg
4 hours ago
- Bloomberg
NY Lawmakers Near Deadline to Pass Bill Targeting Emerging Market ‘Vulture Funds'
New York state lawmakers are within days of a deadline to pass legislation targeting so-called vulture funds that has languished in the local legislature for the past two years. The state Assembly is expected to make a decision on the so-called Champerty bill before adjourning next Tuesday. If it doesn't pass by then, supporters will have to wait until January for the debate to resume.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
US reacts to Israeli strikes: GOP backs Israel, Democrats push diplomacy
Reactions in the US to Israel's overnight strikes on Iran largely fell along party lines: Several Republican leaders backed Israel's actions and its right to defend itself from Iran's nuclear threat, while Democrats pushed for restraint. However, some MAGA-aligned conservatives questioned the value of another war in the Middle East, as negotiations over Gaza have faltered. The White House appeared to distance itself from Israel's decision. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the US was not involved in the attack, and that Israel's decision was 'unilateral.' President Donald Trump said he had been made aware of Israel's plans to strike Friday, but emphasized there was no US military involvement. Israel and Iran have made clear they will continue to retaliate, sparking concerns about a wider regional conflict. Trump said he will attend a National Security Council meeting today, though it is unclear if Sunday's planned talks with Iran will go ahead. Many Republicans backed Israel's right to strike Iran, as they continue to support Israel as a key US ally. Sen. Tom Cotton said on X that 'Iran is the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism [and] has the blood of thousands of Americans on its hands… We back Israel to the hilt, all the way.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune warned Iran of US intervention should violence escalate: 'Iran should heavily consider the consequences before considering any action against Americans in the region.' Sen. Ted Cruz, responded with a similar warning: 'To the Ayatollah: If you attack American military bases, President Trump will respond with overwhelming force.' Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsey Graham, wrote on X, 'Game on,' adding 'Pray for Israel.' Some 'America First' conservatives feared that Israel's strikes may end up pushing the US toward yet another disastrous war in the Middle East. 'The question is,' Trump ally Charlie Kirk said moments after Israel's attack began, 'How does the America First foreign policy doctrine and foreign policy agenda … stay consistent with this right now?' Dan Caldwell, who briefly served as a senior adviser to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, said, 'Another major war in the Middle East where America sends another generation of its sons and daughters to die… is the last thing we need right now.' Far-right influencer Jack Posobiec wrote ahead of the strikes that 'a direct strike on Iran right now would disastrously split the Trump coalition.' Democrats largely focused their messaging on de-escalating relations between Israel and Iran and avoiding all-out war. Sen. Tim Kaine said he 'cannot understand why Israel would launch a preemptive strike at this juncture,' given ongoing nuclear talks, and said Americans 'have no interest in another forever war.' Sen. Chris Murphy, said the attack was 'clearly intended to scuttle the Trump Administration's negotiations with Iran' and risks a regional war. 'We have no obligation to follow Israel into a war we did not ask for and will make us less safe,' Murphy added. Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement: 'Israel's alarming decision to launch airstrikes on Iran is a reckless escalation that risks igniting regional violence.'