Alaska's No on 2 Campaign Condemns Dark Money While Relying on Out-of-State Left-Wing Funding
Source: Shawn Fleetwood. "Alaska's Pro-RCV Campaign Is Bankrolled By Out-Of-State Money." October 9, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author says the group fighting to keep ranked-choice voting in Alaska talks against outside 'dark money' but is taking millions from out-of-state unions and left-leaning groups. He argues this is hypocritical and shows the campaign is driven by outside liberal interests.
Conclusion
The 'No on 2' campaign to preserve ranked-choice voting in Alaska is hypocritical: it criticizes 'dark money' and 'outside spenders' while depending on millions of dollars from out-of-state, left-wing organizations. This undermines its credibility and suggests that keeping RCV is an outside, left-wing project rather than a grassroots one.
Premises
- The No on 2 campaign's website criticizes 'dark money' and 'outside spenders' in elections.
- The Oct. 5 Alaska Public Offices Commission report shows that much of No on 2's roughly $3 million in funds for July 8-Oct. 2 came from out-of-state groups.
- Major out-of-state donors include the NEA ($700,500), Unite America PAC ($1M, on top of about $3.61M earlier), AFSCME ($250,000), the SEIU 775NW Ballot Fund ($100,000 plus $150,000 earlier), and Way Back PAC ($275,000), plus individual donors Jason Carroll ($500,000) and Scott Sandell ($100,000).
- These donors are characterized as left-wing or Democratic-aligned, and some are said to be tied to the left's dark-money network.
- A similar wave of out-of-state money helped defeat the 2024 RCV repeal effort by fewer than 700 votes, and the same forces are now returning.
Assumptions
- Large contributions from out-of-state organizations count as 'dark money' or 'outside spending' in the sense the campaign condemns.
- Accepting such funds contradicts the campaign's stated opposition to outside money, rather than reflecting a narrower objection (for example, to undisclosed sources).
- The political leanings of donors reflect the true motives behind the campaign and reduce its legitimacy.
- Outside funding materially influences the outcome of the vote.
- The reader already regards RCV as harmful, or will treat left-wing backing as a reason to distrust it.
- Pro-repeal forces are not comparably reliant on outside money, or that matters less.