Takeaways
- Ballot Measure 2 would repeal not only Alaska’s ranked choice voting and open primaries election system but also its anti-dark money provisions.
- Alaska is uniquely vulnerable to moneyed interests.
In early August, Alaskans woke to the news that Elon Musk had donated $1.5 million in support of one of the state’s ballot measures. The sum is negligible for the world’s richest man, but for a ballot measure campaign where the median donation was $100, the figure was striking. Even more eyebrow-raising, Alaskans only learned about Musk’s intention to throw his weight around because of the very election laws he is seeking to repeal.
Ballot Measure 2 in 2026 proposes to repeal the election system that Alaskans voted into law in 2020. The reform package included adopting ranked choice voting, mandating unified, all-candidate, or “open” primaries, and requiring intermediary organizations such as political action committees (aka PACs and SuperPACs) to share the “true source” of donations over $2,000, plus disclose if out-of-state actors are funding ads. Since passage, this law has served as the state’s only tool for illuminating the pools of dark money flowing through Alaska.1
A “yes” vote on Ballot Measure 2 would represent a repeal of the election system that Alaskans have affirmed twice in full or in part—first in 2020 when voters approved the dark money disclosure laws and ranked choice voting and open primaries on the ballot; then again in 2024, when they narrowly rejected a measure to repeal open primaries and ranked choice voting.
This year, the groups advocating for repeal have focused their campaign messages on ranked choice voting. What they’re not saying is that this November, they’re also seeking to repeal the top four primary system, as well as Alaskans’ unique campaign finance transparency laws—requiring disclosure of outside money like Musk’s.
Alaska’s transparency laws have illuminated murky campaign interests
The ominous term “dark money” refers to anonymous donations to third party groups, which then spend on campaign activities. What is the problem with undisclosed campaign funding? Money can make or break a campaign. It can buy ads, phone banking services, canvassing hours, or data analysis. It can raise the salience of an issue and even persuade voters—candidates who raise the most money in US House races win 90 percent of the time. Voters must be able to identify the source of campaign funding to adequately gauge how the funders’ interests relate to their own. If they can’t see who paid to get that ad in front of their eyes, they can’t make an informed choice.
Millions of dollars in unknown funds flowed to Alaska campaigns prior to campaign disclosure laws
The ominous term “dark money” refers to anonymous donations to third-party groups, which then spend on campaign activities. What’s wrong with undisclosed campaign funding? Well, money can make or break a campaign. It can buy ads, phone banking services, canvassing hours, or data analysis. It can raise the salience of an issue and move voters. Candidates who raise the most money in US House races win 90 percent of the time. It hides the source of campaign funding from voters, meaning they can’t adequately gauge whether the funders’ interests match their own. If voters can’t see who paid to get that ad in front of their eyes, they can’t make an informed choice about the candidate or issue they’re considering.
Prior to campaign disclosure laws, millions of dollars in unknown funds flowed to Alaska campaigns
According to the original 2020 campaign to unmask dark money in Alaska, $15.5 million flowed into political campaigns in the state between 2014 and 2020 from unknown sources. Voters were, well, in the dark.
Prior to the reform, both the political left and right used dark money in Alaska. In 2019, a group called “Families of the Last Frontier” received $70,000 to support its campaign activities in the Anchorage municipal election. The donor to this group was listed as “GOPAC.” While a quick Google search will reveal that GOPAC is affiliated with the Republican Party, its funders and their interests in the state are completely opaque. Inferring from Families of the Last Frontier’s 2022 lawsuit activity attempting to block the implementation of the transparency measure, the organizers behind that effort preferred to keep it that way.
On the other side of the spectrum, New Venture Fund, a Democratic Party-affiliated intermediary, gave $877,300 in 2016 to the PFD Automatic Voter Registration Campaign. This ballot measure proposed to automatically register individuals to vote who apply for Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend. The measure eventually became law. New Venture Fund is one of the largest dark money operations on the political left. Who at that fund decided to prioritize this ballot measure, and what were their goals? Alaskans will likely never get the full story, because at the time, the true source of those funds is obscured.
After campaign disclosure laws, Alaskans know a lot more about who’s funding state races
Since the implementation of Alaska’s campaign finance disclosure laws in 2022, donors cannot easily lurk in the dark. Journalists would never have been able to write these headlines, for instance:
- Big donor to campaign to end open primaries charged in big Medicaid fraud case, Alaska Current
- Complaint alleges foes of Alaska’s ranked choice voting formed a church to funnel political donations, Alaska Public Media
- Outside megadonors fuel campaigns over the future of Alaska’s election system, Anchorage Daily News
- Listicle: Follow the money at the ‘No on 2’ campaign, which has $12.3 million—most tracing back to the John and Laura Arnold dark network, Must Read Alaska
And of course:
- Elon Musk spends big in push to repeal Alaska’s voting system, Anchorage Daily News
These headlines in a range of outlets spotlight funding sources whose ideologies span the political spectrum. The mandated spending reports allow journalists to uncover names and affiliations and infer motivations that would have been concealed before.
Scott Kendall, an Anchorage attorney and one of the original architects of the 2020 reform, quipped: “…Otherwise, we’re talking about groups with names like ‘Americans for Apple Pie’ donating! The only reason we know who they are is because of this law.”
Today, Alaska has some of the toughest anti-dark money laws in the country. Enforcement is the next hurdle. Regulators at the Alaska Public Offices Commission are underfunded and understaffed, and some campaigns have chosen to pay the fines rather than comply scrupulously with reporting requirements. Alaskans can urge lawmakers to fully fund the enforcement of these laws.
Dark money goes a long way in Alaska
Alaska is singularly vulnerable to dark money. The state has the second smallest population in the country. Most of its people live in Anchorage or Fairbanks, which are relatively inexpensive media markets. The number of people you need to convince to win an election is laughably small compared with states such as California or Texas, and the gains of doing so are considerable. Alaska has two Senate seats for its 739,000 residents, as well as a natural resource-reliant economy within which a narrow group of people can win rich rewards from favorable legislation.
Alaska also has the smallest bicameral legislature, so modest campaign spending on state legislative races can meaningfully alter the makeup of government. The average contested Senate race in Alaska in 2024 raised less than $100,000. A wealthy donor could easily quintuple that figure and swamp opponents for a decisive number of seats.
In short, a little bit of money goes a long way in Alaska. Transparency laws, like Alaska’s dark money ban, ensure voters know who is spending—and why.
A “No on 2” vote will preserve Alaska’s election system and transparency laws
Much of the advertising for “Yes on 2” never mentions the measure’s transparency rollback, and it’s easy to see why. National polls confirm that most individuals, regardless of party, want more transparency in campaign finance, not less. Ballot Measure 1, an initiative to introduce campaign spending limits, passed with over 70% support on Alaska’s primary ballot in August, indicating that most voters politics reject a pay-to-play model for shaping their government and laws.
Alaskans have now enjoyed a few years’ more insight into their elections. They know more about who’s funding candidates and ballot measures, whose interests those dollars speak for, and whether their own priorities align with them. Whether or not Ballot Measure 2 will determine whether they’d get to keep that information at hand for future races, alongside whatever else they’re weighing as they fill in their ballots.
In other words, the outcome of Ballot Measure 2 will determine whether Alaskans know if the next $1.5 million donation into an election is from the world’s richest man, or if it’s from Americans for Apple Pie.
