Alaska campaign finance regulators scored a victory last week when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that a national Republican group still must answer unanswered questions stemming from an election that happened nearly three years ago.
The ruling is the latest in one of the state’s longest-running unresolved campaign finance complaints, which stems from accusations that an independent expenditure group funded by the national Republican Governors Association to support Dunleavy’s election in 2022 wasn’t as independent as claimed. It alleges that A Stronger Alaska, which received $3 million in funding from RGA, was little more than a cover for the national organization.
The original complaint, which was filed by the Alaska Public Interest Research Group and the 907 Initiative, argues that RGA always maintained full control of both the money and the group. That’s a big deal because, if true, it means RGA could face significant fines for operating as an unregistered group and potentially expose the inner workings of the influential Republican group.
But clarity on the situation has been slow coming.
Campaign regulators with the Alaska Public Offices Commission have faced years of legal stonewalling by the RGA and ASA lawyers, who have refused to answer subpoenas regarding the inner workings of the groups, including internal communications and banking records, and have filed several appeals. They’ve come up with a long list of legally dubious arguments, such as claiming that answering questions at a hearing is equivalent to providing records.
Essentially, because the RGA executives said there was no problem, there was no problem.
That didn’t sit well with Superior Court Judge Una Gandbhir, who ruled in January 2024 that the group had to answer regulators’ subpoenas for information, comparing it to trusting a money launderer’s word.
“A claim that prior testimony about the information contained in such documents is the same as an actual document is simply without merit,” Judge Gandbhir wrote. “Applying Defendants’ logic, a subpoena for bank records in an investigation could be voided because a suspect testified that he did not launder money.”
That line was referenced in the Alaska Supreme Court’s order last week, upholding Gandbhir’s decision.
“As the superior court pointedly observed, witness testimony does not obviate the relevance of or need for documentary evidence that can prove or disprove the truth of the testimony,” wrote the Supreme Court. “Prior testimony does not satisfy requests for documentary evidence. And the prior testimony in these matters did not address much of the information the Commission sought in the subpoenas.”
The Supreme Court upheld the other parts of the ruling, finding that APOC’s decision to investigate the issue rather than make a snap decision back in 2022 didn’t mean that the RGA had won. The Supreme Court also ruled that the investigation had not violated RGA’s due process rights.
It’s still not clear when we’ll get a resolution to the case.
The issue now heads back to APOC regulators for the subpoena and investigation process, which has been stalled for the better part of the last three years.
Dunleavy, who won his re-election in 2022, has one year left on his term.
The Supreme Court ruling
Matt Acuña Buxton is a long-time political reporter who has written for the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and The Midnight Sun political blog. He also authors the daily politics newsletter, The Alaska Memo, and can frequently be found live-tweeting public meetings on Bluesky.
