Most voters learn about local political campaigns from what they see in candidates' ads and media stories, but the Alaska Public Offices Commission website offers a glimpse into the inner workings of campaigns.  Candidates must disclose where every single dollar they raise comes from, and they must account for every penny they spend.  APOC puts this information on their website http://www.state.ak.us/apoc/campaign.htm, which is searchable and relatively user friendly. 

     Perhaps the least surprising fact about this April’s election results was that the better funded candidate won in five of the six Assembly races.  Dan Sullivan’s victory in West Anchorage was the most expensive; his total income was over $102,000  seven days before the election, making his campaign at least the third most expensive in Municipal history overall at a cost of $17.27 per vote.  Alan Tesche, whose fundraising total was $47,000, scored the cheapest victory, which is fitting since his Downtown district is the smallest in the city and his race cost $22.46 per vote.  (The cost per vote will increase when the candidates file their final reports.)

     Of course, money is not everything in electoral politics. Without a winning message, a well financed campaign will still fail.  Tesche certainly did not need to spend $47,000 on his race, considering he was running in the most liberal district in the city against an unknown ultra-conservative who was not actively fundraising.  Conversely, while Sullivan’s war chest certainly gave him a great advantage, his opponent Matt Claman’s campaign was actually better funded ($71,000 versus $60,000 for Jennings at the seven day mark) than Pamela Jenning’s was in 2004 when she captured the other West Anchorage seat against Dave Werdal who had raised about $1,000 less than Sullivan had at the seven day mark.

     Sullivan has been one of Mayor Mark Begich’s most vocal critics on the Assembly, and is expected to run against Begich for mayor next year.  Naturally, the mayor threw his support behind Claman, but apparently the Begich family was not united.  Mark’s brother Nick Begich gave $40 dollars to Sullivan’s campaign.

     Mayor Mark Begich does not face the voters again until next year, and it is not clear who his opponents will be, but he has gotten his fundraising off to a fast start.  Between November 2004 and February 2005, he raised almost $70,000 for his reelection effort, with 36 donors giving the $1,000 maximum contribution.  While $1,000 is supposedly the maximum individual contribution, a loophole in Alaska’s campaign finance laws makes it the maximum donation in a calendar year.  This means Begich could accept another $1,000 check in 2005 from each of the 35 individuals who gave the maximum in 2004 and another in 2006. 

      Perhaps the most interesting contribution Mayor Begich received is a $500 check from conservative Assemblyman Dan Coffey.  While Coffey has been able to work effectively with Begich and his allies on the Assembly, Coffey generally sides with Dan Sullivan and the conservative faction on divisive issues.  But Coffey’s contribution record indicates that this contribution should not necessarily be considered an endorsement.  A quick APOC search reveals that over the years Coffey has given thousands of dollars to numerous candidates- both Democrats and Republicans- and that he often gave money to opposing candidates.  In 2000 he gave to George Wuerch, Mark Begich, and Bob Bell for their mayoral campaigns, and in 2003 he contributed to Begich’s and Rick Mystrom’s campaigns.  It seems likely that if Dan Sullivan, or another conservative, throws his hat in the ring he might receive a check from Coffey as well.

     Dan Coffey’s habit of giving to opposing candidates may seem bizarre, but it may be the secret to his own fundraising success.  Last year Coffey won his Midtown seat by narrowly defeating incumbent Doug Van Etten.  Coffey’s campaign was a financial juggernaut raising almost $179,000 dollars ($42.15 per vote), making it the most expensive Assembly campaign in municipal history by over $50,000.  Coffey’s support from the liquor and building industries was well publicized, but those lobbies are often involved in local politics and are not enough to explain why Coffey was able to build such a huge war chest.  Perhaps it was his practice of spreading his contributions across the aisle that enabled him to call upon a larger and more diverse donor pool than most conservative challengers. 

     Money may not be everything, but it is an important indicator of a campaign’s strength.  Activists are right to worry about whether elected officials are unduly influenced by campaign contributions.  The possibility of undue influence is why campaign disclosure laws are so important.  Candidates who raise more than $5,000 must report the names of all their donors and the addresses and employers of anyone who gives them more than $250.  APOC provides a valuable service by allowing anyone with a modem to see who is bankrolling the candidates and, arguably, controlling government.