Alaska Dispatch

At a Tea Party Express press conference Monday, when a reporter from KTUU asked whether Alaskans would resent a Lower 48 group pumping money into the election, a party leader trotted out some clichés about how on Election Day it'll just be Alaskans in the voting booths. And then, from the back of the room, lieutenant governor candidate Eddie Burke called out, "How much of Lisa Murkowski's money is from Outside interests?"

Burke getting loud is hardly news. But the issue of Outside money in "our" elections is one Alaskans like to get worked up over, and in the Republican primary between U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Fairbanks attorney Joe Miller, Outside money has become a talking point. While the California-headquartered Tea Party Express has promised to spend "hundreds of thousands of dollars" to get Miller elected, Murkowski is undeniably the cash leader in this race.

According to Miller's most recent campaign filing, he has about $125,000 on hand. Murkowski's shows almost $2.4 million. From a public power plant in Arizona to an Anchorage homemaker to a Washington state fisherman, there's a lot of money being thrown around to keep Murkowski in office.

Miller's campaign has been quick to criticize the size of Murkowski's war chest.

"I think there's a sense of insulation that comes from having so much money that you don't have to vote the values of the voters of your state," said Miller spokesman Randy DeSoto. "She's tried to criticize us for not rejecting the Tea Party money, but she's had six years to raise money and most of it has come from out of state."

The Murkowski campaign recently said it "definitely raises some eyebrows" that Miller is associating himself with the tea party.

"Her criticism doesn't make sense," DeSoto said.

But Murkowski's campaign stands by the assertion.

"I find it ironic that he's sitting here saying things like this when their entire campaign is based on this fringe California-based tea party group," Murkowski campaign spokesman Steve Wackowski said. "It says a lot about a candidate when he has to loan himself the money to run his campaign and can't get that support from Alaskans." (Miller has loaned $103,920.69 of his own money to his campaign.)

Beyond that, Murkowski's congressional staff notes there are legitimate reasons for a member of Congress to receive money from donors outside her home district, and that such contributions are in no way indicative of a lawmaker whose loyalties have left home.

"The reality is that you have to spend a lot of time in Washington, D.C. and give a lot of time to national issues," added Robert Dillon, a Murkowski spokesperson. Still, "Sen. Murkowski has focused foremost on Alaska and Alaska's needs," he said.

Of the $2.4 million Murkowski has to play with in her fight to beat back Miller, at least $850,000 came in from actual people, while at least $1.1 million or more came from political action committees.

Murkowski gathered up six figures in campaign donations from oil and gas PACs in 2009 and 2010 alone. That's in addition to the $188,500 she picked up from PACs run by electric utilities and the donations from PACs run by other politicians. Heck, the $114,000 she raised from health care PACs alone is a few thousand more than Miller has managed to raise altogether. (Figures are from the most recent Federal Election Commission filings available for committee contributions, current through May 2010.)

Dillon points out that Murkowski is a ranking member of the Senate Energy Committee -- a committee with jurisdiction over any number of areas that would be of interest to the energy sector, including utilities, as a whole. "The fact is that Murkowski is a rational voice on national energy policy and that affects their businesses," he said, surmising that the same PACS likely gave to a several other members of Congress as well.

With health industry reforms making so many headlines, health care PACs have also paid close attention to lawmakers over the last few years. Murkowski garnered donations from 49 health care PACs, including $8,000 from a committee representing Pfizer and $3,500 from GlaxoSmithKline's PAC, and a number of $1,000 donations from associations that represent specialists like dermatologists and dentists.

Name

Email

Title

Comment

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Post