Board Gets Interesting Testimony And Works On Mapping Skills

 Morning so far has included 

Board discussing how they want to learn the mapping software during the day today

Testimony by:

James Squires Gulkana

Tom Begich - State Senator and very involved in past two redistricting processes

Rhonda Pitka -  Village of Beaver

Aaron Shutt - CEO Doyon

It's 10:38 now and the Board members are working together and individually on their computers to create districts in SE Alaska.  Basically, this is a learning exercise so they can get skilled on the mapping software.  They are each asking questions and staff are giving suggestions for what to do.  

Here are my notes from this morning.  Of most substantive interest is the testimony.  Regular disclaimers:  these are rough notes, a guide to what's happening at the Board, but not verbatim and not without errors.  

AK Redistricting Board Notes

Aug. 24, 2021

Meeting 

9am - 10:15am

9:17  Peter Torkelson demonstrating online website.

9:44 Board has been talking about the new software and how they want to learn the software.  

9:48  Board is going to take public testimony - looking for people on line who might want to testify.  Two people in line

9:50 James Squire, Gulkana District 9 describing district.  Even to Whittier - we have little in common - people living in Super Cold down to Whittier.  Delta to Valdez - north of Alaska range to Whittier and Palmer.  Distance to travel from one part to another.  Need something more reasonable, similar climates, life style.  They drive to Fairbanks, NOT Palmer.  Alaska Range is important boundary.  I understand you need to get population.  Alaskans in Palmer have little to do with what goes on here.  We go to FB and FB comes to us for recreation.  

John:  Thanks very much appreciate the detail and brevity.  If you’ve been looking online, can you give the online mapping project 

Nicole - Thanks for excellent, precise testimony.  

James Squire - We don’t go to Fred Meyers in Palmer, Go to Fairbanks.  Difference between -4 and -50.  

Sen. Tom Begich, from Anchorage - Thanks for letting me testify.  Couldn’t yesterday.  Commend you on your process.  I’ve served in 2001 and 2011 cycle.  First - caution, if you separate into group you’ll run into  interlocking puzzle problem when you put them together.

1. Two piece criteria - Federal and Constitutional guidance.  There are no existing districts.  They are built by scratch.  We start by looking at Burroughs because they are by definition socio-economic integrated.  You talked about starting with SE because has only one direction to go.  Having done that, there is a way to have a core district with Yakutat.  
2. Mr. Squires says Delta should be connected with FB.  He’s right.  No reason for Delta or Valdez to be connected with FB.
3. Matsu has to find that .6 percent and Anchorage will too, while Kenai and FB have to shed population.  Anchorage 15.8 will have to go south to get the extra population.  It can be done.
4. Matsu won’t be able to go south to Anchorage.  
5. Heard Doyon testimony.  Areas of Doyon region required by 39 can be returned to Doyon.

Starting with Socio Economic first, existing districts are irrelevant.

Start with SE

Take testimony.  

John:  Thanks Senator, that was a lot to absorb.  Couldn’t follow it all.  You have a lot of experience.  

Melanie:  Thank you.  For those not familiar with this, we have to follow Alaska Constitution, that we start with blank slate, look at Constitution.

Nicole:  Specific recs for Delta and Valdez.  Repeat?

Tom:  Palmer has grown.  Control of six seats.  Valdez, the largest pop center and Delta neither required by Palmer.   Move Cordova into broader district with Valdez.  Another thing:  Courts fairly strict of socio-economic relationship.  We tried to use community councils but courts said no, the whole city.  But because Fairbanks City was an elected govt. inside the Borough so it was given consideration.

Including Valdez in anchorage district struck down in 2001 because they had no relationship.  

John.  Thanks. You said not be relying on existing districts, just socio-economic aspects.  To me it’s intuitive because they’ve passed Court scrutiny.  They were binding.  Why not use that as a starting point.  

Tom:  Court ruled that Anchorage by definition is socio-economic area so line can be drawn anywhere.  In that criteria, massive deviation with new data.  In outlying areas .  No inherent right of district to exist.  But socio-economic unit does have right.  You do have natural districts - Nome area - but if you start there you ignore the socio-economic as most important.  You can use the districts to guide you.  You can have deviation within 5 points.  Start with Constitution criteria - socio-economic integrated, contiguity, compactness.  

Ronda Pitka from Village of Beaver  - Testifying on behalf of Beaver Village council.  Heavily rely on.  Support of strong consideration of work of Sealaska, ?????, to advance or suppress political power of Alaska Natives has been considerable.  We should be able to hold reps accontable.  In past, we’ve been fractured in deference to Fairbanks.  If map of unfractured representative.  Doyon and partners have looked at river systems, local boundaries.  ??

Melanie:  Thanks for calling in and testifying.  

John:  Audience wish to testify?

Mr. Aaron Shutt CEO Doyon  (https://www.doyonutilities.com/leadership/aaron-m-schutt)- Thanks mr. Squires.  The work we (Doyon) are doing supports Mr. Squires.  Interior is one socio-economic unit.  Rural parts of Alaska always come together.  Also share with Board, resources to board.  If you have questions for us we’re here to help.  We have a great team.  

John:  natural time for break.  Till 10:30

1:20pm

I decided to go home during the lunch break to see how this works online.  You can watch here: http://akleg.gov/index.php#

There were some redistricting board sessions done via phone last time, but I don't remember any live stream video.  It makes the meetings much more accessible to the world, and my blogging not quite as important.  

Walker's Statement About Why He's Ending His Campaign For Governor

I spent all day in US District Courtroom #2 - Henry v. MOA.  I got out at 2pm, with my head spinning and my stomach protesting the lack of a lunch break.  Stopped at the Court Clerk's office to see what I could find about the case on their computer.  I ended up taking images of the Summary, Main Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations from the Brown Study that was released the other day to the public.  Then I biked home along Chester Creek.  There, my wife asked if I'd heard the news.  I hadn't.

So here's the Governor's announcement and explanation.  I could have lived reasonably comfortably with Bill Walker getting another four years.  I voted for him last time and he's an honorable man, intelligent, and appears always to have the best for Alaska in mind.  I don't agree with all his positions, but that's true about most elected officials.  As of today, it's (sort of) a two way race between Mark Begich and Mike Dunleavy.  Walker's name will still be on the ballot and I'm sure some people will vote for him (please don't unless you were planning to vote for Dunleavy.)  And the Division of Elections has said 1000 absentee votes are already in, and surely some of those folks voted for Walker.

I'll try to get something up about the trial later tonight or tomorrow.  Meanwhile, here's the email the Governor sent out.

Dear Alaskans,
I ran for re-election because I still believe that, more than anything else, Alaska deserves integrity, honesty, and courage.
Alaska First is, and cannot only be, a campaign slogan. When I said I ran for governor to do the job, not make the decisions to keep the job, I meant exactly what I said.  Every decision I have made as your governor, I have made on the basis of what I believe is best for Alaska.
With that said, effective today, I am suspending my campaign for re-election as Governor. With more time, I am confident that Val and I could deliver a message and a campaign that could earn a victory in this election.
But there are only 18 days remaining before election day. Absentee ballots have already been mailed, and Alaskans are already voting. In the time remaining, I believe we cannot win a three-way race.
This week I have talked to many Alaskans to determine whether I or Mark Begich had a better chance of running a competitive race against Mike Dunleavy. The determination was made that, at this point, Begich has the better odds.
Alaskans deserve a competitive race. Alaskans deserve a choice other than Mike Dunleavy, whose record and campaign rhetoric indicate he will:

• eliminate Medicaid Expansion that has provided healthcare access to 44,000 Alaskans, created jobs and brought $1 billion federal dollars into the Alaskan economy while decreasing State healthcare expenditures by $16 million, kept hospitals from closing, and saved lives;
• defund the Alaska LNG Gasline project that has made historic progress, will create 12,000 high paying construction jobs, 88,000 direct and indirect jobs and deliver low cost energy to our homes and businesses;
• undo the bipartisan approved sustainable fiscal plan that has resulted in fiscal stability, significantly reduced the deficit, improved our credit rating and preserved the PFD program into perpetuity;
• cause our most vulnerable to suffer the brunt of the additional $1 billion in budget cuts he vows to make to education, rural Alaska and those receiving healthcare.

Moreover, my administration has worked tirelessly to improve the relationship between Tribes and State and restore respect for Alaska's First Peoples in state government. Yesterday, I apologized on behalf of the State of Alaska for the wrongs committed against the Alaska Native people throughout our history, because I believed that was best for Alaska. My expectation is that this work critical to the healing of historical trauma and unifying all Alaskans will be undone in a Dunleavy administration.
On balance, it is my belief that despite my many differences with Mark Begich, his stance on the important issues I have listed above more closely align with my priorities for Alaska.
This is not the first difficult decision I have made this week, but it is one I know I must make. There simply are no words to express my deepest gratitude to the incomparable, dedicated team of outstanding Alaskans who have served in my administration and to the thousands of supporters, donors, volunteers and campaign staff who have been passionately committed to my re-election. And above all, I want to say thank you to my family and to Donna, my first lady for life.
As I said earlier this week, ultimately, it's not how long my team and I serve, it's how well we served the people and the state we love while the opportunity was ours. We have served with integrity, courage, devotion, and compassion, never asking ourselves whether a decision is politically correct but always asking if it is right for Alaska. I am proud of the work we have done in the most challenging fiscal crisis in state history and it is the honor of my life to have served as the governor of this great state.
Thank you, God bless you all, and may God continue to bless Alaska.
Bill Walker

In this age of cynicism about politics, I thank Governor Walker for what he's done in the last four years and for taking this difficult step.  

Gubernatorial Debate - Walker, Begich, Toien, But No Dunleavy [UPDATE - Walker's Lt. Gov Resigns] [2nd UPDATE]

UAA, the ADN, and a few others sponsored a debate at UAA's Wendy Williamson Auditorium, Monday evening from 5;30pm to 7pm.


It was a pretty low-key affair with each candidate showing courtesy and significant agreement with each other.  My quick crowd estimate (counting people in a few rows and then counting how many rows) gave me a 200-300 estimate.  

Current Governor Bill Walker, Independent, was sincere, practical, sounding a bit frustrated that the legislature wouldn't do the responsible thing and create an overall fiscal plan including new revenues.  He was critical of the fact that they had used up, I believe he said, 80% of the budget reserves in the last four years.

Former US Senator and Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, Democrat, had similar themes though he also argued strongly that the Permanent Fund needs Constitutional protections or politicians will use it up.  He also called for new revenues.

Libertarian candidate Billy Toien's take was a little different.  He pointed to stacks of documents - 30 years of budget data he claimed - and said there is no crisis.  He argued that there were various special funds - I think he said about 50 - that should all be put into the general budget and the deficit would go away.  Some were mentioned - like the Alaska Aerospace Corporation and the Alaska Railroad.  I'm skeptical that moving them all into the general budget would solve our fiscal problems, but it raises the issue of whether these units get considered for cuts during budget time in the same way that regular government agencies do.

Toien, unlike Walker and Begich, was opposed to all new taxes and existing taxes and seemed to believe that the additional revenues generated by putting the independent units' funds into the general budget should be distributed to the people of Alaska.

Republican Mike Dunleavy, we were told, had a conflicting engagement and wasn't there.  His presence probably would have added some lively debate.  And he was criticized by the other three - they said he was making short term promises with no eye on the future and that all the things he promised - maintaining the permanent fund and current services, plus cutting the budget, and no new revenues - were impossible to achieve.


I thought Begich and Walker treated Toien with the sort of condescending respect one would use for a little kid who participates in an adult activity.   But everyone was very cordial.

There were three ADN journalist who were given a chance to ask question.

Tegan Hanlon.

Annie Zak and Tom Hewitt.  I wasn't taking notes, but all the questions were pretty routine.  Things like, what is on the top of your list of things to cut?

I was waiting for one of the candidates to mention KABATA (the Knik Arm Bridge And Toll Authority), but no one did.

Toien came across to me as the kind of guy who has latched on to a couple of ideas that may, by themselves, have some merit.  But that they were utterly untethered from the bigger picture.

Walker is sincere and has 'the adult in the room' sort of tone.  He takes his job seriously but it seemed all process - we have to do things reasonably, take the revenues seriously - and little content, and he didn't spell out why he would be more successful with the next legislature than he has been so far.

Begich was able, as he always has been, to talk fluently about facts on all sorts of issues and tie things together.  He has the enviable ability to smile and respond with humor to anyone, even those whose ideas he is totally opposed to.  I would have like to see how he interacted with Dunleavy.

Dunleavy appears to believe, as do many Alaskans, that he has the election in the bag because Begich and Walker will cut into each others' vote count.  So he can just skip forums like this one.  If that's true, Alaska is in for a rough next four years.  Begich's strategy on entering the race - that he or Walker would drop out after the primary when it was clear which had the better chance against Dunleavy - hasn't worked out.

[UPDATE Oct 16, 2018 4pm:  Walker's Lt. Gov Byron Mallott resigned last night, apparently due to comments made about women or to a women.  The Governor has replaced him with Valerie Nurr’araaluk Davidson, Director of Rural and Native Affairs.  See ADN for more details.  It's amazing how quickly many Democratic men step down after an incident like this compared to Republican men.]

[UPDATE Oct. 16, 2018 5pm:  A FaceBook post 15 minutes ago::
Kate Laird: This is the most interesting bit: Asked whether Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mark Begich could replace Mallott on the lieutenant governor ticket, akin to the formation of the 2014 “unity ticket” between Mallott and Walker, Heckendorn [Walker's campaign manager] said, “We have been in conversations with Begich about the best way to move forward for Alaska, and those conversations will continue. We’ve been in conversations before we had any idea of what had happened with Byron. We’ve been in conversations with Begich for a few days about how to move forward in a way that’s best for Alaska.” <nevermind my minor question about why they couldn't have had that chat before ballots were printed ...>]

No, No, No - Bill Walker's Not A Progressive - Confusing Rational For Progressive - Updated

This was in a letter to the editor Sunday in the Anchorage Daily News (ADN):

"Instead, the three-way race pits two progressives against each other, encouraging them to battle it out between themselves while the conservative has no real opponent."

The Republican Party has been mean and nasty and obstructionist and focused on narrow partisan hardball tactics, particularly since  Obama was elected.  (Of course, it has nothing to do with race, wink, wink.)  A prime example was McConnell's,

"Our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term."

And despite bringing the approval of judges to a near standstill, and blocking even debate on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland completely, they have the nerve to complain that the Democrats want to get documentation before considering Brett Kavanaugh now.  Senators used to refer to each other as the Honorable Senator from ...  Now they make personal attacks:

'I question their sincerity. ... What more do they need to know?'

[I assume I needn't mention the elephant in the White House because everyone is fully aware of his total lack of any kind of social decency or conscience.]

This all leads to how people are now confusing someone being polite and rational as being Progressive.  Maybe that augurs well for Progressives in November, but I would like to point out that being Progressive isn't simply about being rational and well mannered.  It's about policy that include all Americans, about taking care of those who have greater hardships and obstacles, about having access to affordable health care, about focus on the community AND the individual, about breaking down legal and social structures that help the rich get richer and insure that poor stay poor.  It's about America as the democracy that sets an example to the world and recognizes that it's immigrants who have kept the US vital and creative and economically strong.

Bill Walker was a Republican until the day he filed as an Independent to run for the Alaska governorship.  He did this to avoid running in the Republican primary where he'd lost the primary four years earlier.  Compared to Dunleavy?  Walker is definitely a better choice, but for a Progressive there can't really be a question between Begich and Walker.  Walker told us in 2014 he was running for Governor to get his gas pipeline put in.  That's been his focus.  And he has seemed often to be the only adult in Juneau.  Though the other Republicans have refused to take the state's financial dilemma seriously and the Democrats didn't have the power to get other revenues sources.  But Walker is also a pro-life Republican.  And  even with his dedication to the pipeline project, it hasn't happened and more and more people are skeptical it ever will.  His Chinese 'partners' are known to be corrupt.  And even with Trump pushing coal, alternative energy is the future, and not the distant future.  Close enough that the cost of the pipeline is likely to be unrecoverable by the time it's built.  The Chinese are sending their first experimental cargo ship to Europe through the Northwest Passage because global warming is making that viable.  And I'm pretty sure that tankers will be able to take North Slope LNG directly from Prudhoe Bay by the time any pipeline is finished.

If I had to pick a Republican to be Governor, Walker would be probably one of the least harmful.

But he's not a progressive.  He's about as progressive, as Richard Nixon, under whose watch we got The Clean Air Act, The Clean Water Act, The Environmental Protection Agency, the opening of China, and the Privacy Act.  And Roe v Wade was decided by the Supreme Court while Nixon was president.  Nixon didn't talk publicly about Roe v. Wade, but when his office tapes were released much later, he'd acknowledged the need for abortion at times (in case or rape or a black and white baby.)

Decency and rationality are important qualities in politicians.  When I watched the Watergate Hearings live back in the 1970s, all the members of the House Judiciary Committee displayed those characteristics - whether Republicans or Democrats.

The attention to John McCain's various memorials this past week reflect this same hunger for decency and rationality on the national level.  It didn't used to be a Progressive monopoly.   If McCain had died on the campaign trail in 2008 after selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate, I assure you Democrats wouldn't have been fawning all over McCain.  It's only now, seeing McCain's principled stands in contrast to a truly awful Republican president, that his passing has been honored so lavishly.  Democrat after Democrat has said, "I honor him as a genuine human being and statesman, even though we disagreed on most issues."

I asked Tom Begich (and to Mark) in July why Mark decided to run.  Their polling data at the time showed Dunleavy winning in a head to head race with Walker, so jumping into the race, as they saw it, wasn't 'giving the election to Walker.'  Tom was hoping that after the primaries, they could look at the polls and decide which one should run.  So rather than splitting the vote, Begich felt his entering the race was the only way to block Dunleavy.  That post with video is here.  

The deadline to withdraw a name from the ballot is any day now.  But if both stay in the race, no one should be confused about there being two progressives.  There are two decent candidates, two conservatives, and one progressive.

[UPDATE a little later:  Jeanne at Mudflats spells out Walker's conservatism in much more detail.]

[UPDATE Sept 4, 2018:  And the idea that Begich and Walker are both progressives is exactly the message the Republicans want Alaskans to believe.  This, from Must Read Alaska, the blog of Suzanne Downing*:

"Begich and Walker both occupy the same space in the electorate — the progressive, Bernie Sanders Democrats and others on the political left. Dunleavy has the political right locked down."]

* Downing is identified in some older opinion pieces as the Communications Director of the Alaska GOP, but I can't find any mention of her on the current AK GOP website.

Why is Mark Begich Running For Governor? Tom Begich Explains

Like a lot of people, apparently, I was surprised and concerned when Mark Begich threw his name into the Governor's race.  A three way race could well give the office to the likes of Mike Dunleavy.  (I'm afraid my opinion of Dunleavy is not very positive, though I acknowledge it's based on one event - the hearings he chaired in Anchorage during a special session.  His committee's task was simply to pass a bill - Bree's Law, to teach kids to defend themselves from sexual predators -  that the Senate had passed unanimously the previous year but the House hadn't gotten too.  The House subsequently passed it and now the Senate merely needed to pass it one more time.  It should have taken five minutes.  It took days.  Dunleavy tried to water down bill and add his own - already rejected during the regular session - amendments.  Here's one of the posts that sums up much of those hearings.)

I consoled myself and others about Begich's decision by saying, "Mark is a good politician and candidate, he knows the issues and he is a real extrovert.  But much more important is that he wouldn't jump in this race without talking to his brother, State Senator Tom Begich. And Tom knows the numbers of Alaska politics better than just about anyone else.  I know this, and got to know Tom, when I was covering the Alaska Redistricting Board.  Tom was at most meetings along with his equally knowledgeable Republican counterpart Randy Ruedrich.

So, when I saw Tom at the immigration rally on Saturday, I gave him pretty much that preface I gave others.  Here's what he answered.  [It was noisy Saturday.  There was music and lots of people talking around us.  The audio is mostly understandable, but I've made a transcript.  There were a few parts I wasn't completely sure of, but nothing that changes the basic meaning.  The transcript follows the video.]



Reasonably close transcript:

Steve:  Tom
Tom:  Hey Steve, how’re you doing?
Steve:  I trust your judgment . . .
Tom:  I’m glad
Steve:  . . . But I’m really concerned about Mark jumping into the race, so tell me why this is happening.  Is this going to lose the race altogether?
Tom:  Not a chance.  When you look at the numbers we use  to analyze the race, what is . . . the key  here is to make sure a progressive is elected governor of the state of Alaska. I spent time talking to the Governor, the Lt. Governor, and others.  My brother.  Facilitating for the last week before the filing deadline.
And you know, it was our belief, based on the data, based on those discussions, that the governor wasn’t going to be in a position to win this race.  And, you know, we can’t sacrifice a progressive agenda, we can’t take that risk.  The imperative was to be sure that the strongest progressive candidate was in the race.  And that that candidate was part of our base party.  Try to remember, our primary is open to Independents and Democrats.  The Governor was ??? going to be in that primary and changed his mind.  That’s a problem.  There would have been another D probably if Mark hadn’t filed.  And Mark would have been, was, is the strongest D.
I never would have supported my brother getting into this race if I didn’t think he could win this race, and I’m certain that he can.  That being said, the question is how do we all come together as progressives?  There’s not a lot of hostility here between the Governor or between my brother.  What there is, is the need to have the strongest candidate face Mike Dunleavy.

Look, we’re talking about the situation now where the Supreme Court at the Federal level where you’re going to have Choice at risk, LGBT rights at risk.  There are a number of things that are going to take strong governance at the local level to ??? those issues.  Mark is the best candidate by far for that.
So with all that said, I believe Mark has the wherewithal to do it and the ability to do it.
Let me add one last thing.  Mark as the Democratic candidate brings other resources to the table.  The Democratic Governors’ Association resources, DFC resources that otherwise wouldn’t be coming to the state.  [http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org]   That’s going to help our down-ballot races, which matters a lot.
I know that both campaigns are going to continue to talk throughout this process, throughout the primary.  I’m certain that at the end of August, everybody will sit down and talk about who’s in third, who’s in second and make the right decisions.  I just believe that’ll happen.  But if it doesn’t happen, we have data that shows Mark wins a three horse race and he’s the stronger candidate in a two horse race.  And that’s what matters.  We have to win for progressives, we have to win.
Steve:  So you’re saying, if Mark didn’t get in the race, Dunleavy would have won anyway?
Tom:  I believe that to be true, yes.
Steve:  Thank you very much.
Tom:  You’re welcome.  

After I stopped the camera, I did ask Tom about the data he was basing this on.  He mentioned some polls, but pointed specifically to a poll that had been posted on Midnight Sun which showed, in a three-way race,  Dunleavy with 38%,  Mark Begich with 33%, and Walker with 23%.  These numbers were based on Begich having just gotten into the race and not having done any campaigning.   He also said that the Permanent Fund was really hurting Walker.  He also pointed out that Walker was a pro-life Republican.  He'd lost in a previous Republican primary so last round he entered as an Independent.  Walker and the Democratic candidate - Alaska Native and former head of the Alaska Permanent Fund Byron Mallott - realized that neither could beat the Republican Sean Parnell in a three way race.  So their Lt. Governor partners bowed out and Mallot joined as the Lt. Governor candidate with Walker as the candidate for Governor.  And they won.  Walker's main goal at the time was to build a natural gas pipeline, force the oil companies to release the natural gas they had on the North Slope, and ship the gas to Asia.  While there is action on that project and an agreement has been signed with a Chinese partners, there is also a lot of skepticism about whether it will ever be built.

If the poll numbers don't change much by August - or if Begich moves up - would Walker be willing to step out of the race?  The Democrats did that in 2014 to help Walker get elected.   I imagine he'd want Begich to commit to the pipeline and perhaps be given a position to lead that fight.  Walker has acted as a rational adult in Juneau- at least as I saw it, making decisions based on facts and practical realities rather than ideology.  But his cutting back the Alaska Permanent Fund while the Republicans blocked any other sources of revenue - recouping the oil taxes they cut earlier, an income tax, even a sales tax - doesn't sit well with Alaskans.  

It's Easier For Dogs To Get Into The US Than For People - Thoughts and Pics From Anchorage Immigration Protest

There were lots of folks at the demonstration on the park strip this morning.  Counting is hard on the ground, but my calculations put the number near or over 1000*.


*I didn't think there were that many folks, until I got into the crowd which was really deep.  I counted a thin wedge of folks and estimated how many wedges there were which got me to about 1000.  In NYE that would come to about 25,000.   NYE - New York Equivalents - is a device I invented at women against Sarah Palin march back in 2008 to give people outside of Alaska a sense of what a given number of Alaskan's would mean in a bigger city.  It gives the crowd  size if the same proportion of New Yorkers were out.  I updated things for more current population figures.  And remember, I could have under or over estimated the size of the crowd.

I got there after the Mayor spoke, but I was told his words were powerful.  Someone else told me the best speaker was the first lady.

I'm going to break this into two posts because I've go so many pictures, mostly of signs - original hand made signs seem to me to be an indicator of people's passion on a topic.

Here's the follow up post.

The big sign with God on it was part of a small anti-abortion contingency that tried to interrupt the speakers by speaking with a bullhorn.  It didn't work.



And these folks seemed to anticipate their presence here

And some bible quoting on behalf of
immigrants.

After walking around and seeing all the dogs in the crowd, I suddenly realized:  Dogs can enter the US more easily than people can.    Imagine:  Some American citizens can bring a dog back from Mexico, but not their own children!  Here are the rules - basically they're about health.

There were lots of dogs.  Here, with  the help of photoshop, you can see both sides of the same dog in one picture:












Even the Statue of Liberty was here to protest.




Twice!

Jesus Christ with sunglasses?

Speaker Robin Bronen from the Alaska Institute for Justice.

Voting showed up in signs here and you may have noticed the Voter Registration table in the 4th picture from the top.

And speaking of voting, former US Senator and current candidate for Governor was talking to folks in the crowd.  Many people have been wondering why he would jump into the governor's race and split the progressive vote.  Including me.  But my answer, to myself and to others has been:  his brother Tom knows the numbers as good as anyone and Mark wouldn't make this decision without talking to Tom.  Well, Tom (who is a Senator in the Alaska Senate) was also there and I posed that question to hm and he gave me a very convincing response.  I've got it on video (I hope, I haven't downloaded it yet)  and I'll put it up Monday or Tuesday. [It's up now here.]  Stay tuned.

,





The women holding these signs said if I do anything with the picture to give credit to the artist, so here: Julio Salgado's online stencils.








More pictures coming soon.

Alaska Election Through Spanish Eyes

"Alaska es tres veces más grande que España, pero tiene menos población que la ciudad de Zaragoza. Para salir elegido senador en ese estado bastan 151.767 votos, que es los que sacó Mark Begich en 2008. Por comparar, Diane Feinstein necesitó 7,7 millones de papeletas en 2012 para renovar su escaño por California. Paradojas de los sistemas electorales.

Pero hacer campaña en Alaska es mucho más difícil que en California. En el caso de Begich, mucho más. En 2008 ganó por los pelos: menos de 4.000 votos de diferencia frente a su rival, el senador Ted Stevens, que estaba procesado por corrupción. Solo ese escándalo permitió a Begich derrotar a la formidable maquinaria política que Stevens había construido en sus 40 años de senador. El demócrata le derroto, además, con una innovadora estrategia: se fue a buscar votantes al Polo Norte."

My high school Spanish gets me more than I would expect - the first sentence is clearly "Alaska is three times bigger than Spain, but has a smaller population than the city of Zaragoza."  But  Bing translator fills in the blanks I can't quite make out, and does it with a distinct computer accent.

Alaska is three times larger than Spain, but has less population than the city of Zaragoza. To exit elected Senator in that State are sufficient 151.767 votes, which is what Mark Begich released in 2008. By comparison, Diane Feinstein needed 7.7 million ballots in 2012 to renew his seat to California. Paradoxes of electoral systems.

But campaigning in Alaska is much more difficult than in California. In the case of Begich, much more. In 2008, won by a whisker: less than 4,000 votes against his rival, Senator Ted Stevens, who was prosecuted for corruption. Only that scandal enabled Begich to defeat the formidable political machinery that Stevens had built in their 40 years of Senator. Democrat defeated him, also with an innovative strategy: went to find voters to the North Pole.

Here's a little more:

. . . Ahora, en 2012 [sic], la historia se está volviendo a repetir. Solo que más intensa. El republicano Dan Sullivan ha decidido disputar a Begich el voto rural. O, más bien, remoto. Y se ha ido, por ejemplo, a Barrow, un pueblo a 2.100 kilómetros del Polo Norte geográfico en el que el 56% de la población es esquimal. Solo hay 10 núcleos urbanos situados más al Norte en el mundo. Canadá, Noruega y Rusia tienen cada uno tres, y Dinamarca oros dos, en Groenlandia. Por su parte, Begich ha reforzado su campaña entre los pescadores, una comunidad extremadamente importante en Alaska.
Así es como los candidatos al Senado se dedican a celebrar reuniones con los patriarcas de las tribus y a aceptar banquetes tradicionales de carne de ballena en pueblos en cuyos basureros no merodean ratas, sino osos polares. Lo que está en juego, sin embargo, es mucho más. Lo más obvio es el control del Senado. Con las elecciones legislativas más inciertas en décadas, todo puede acabar dependiendo de quién gane en Alaska, y eso, a su vez, puede acabar siendo determinado por cualquier pueblo como Barrow.

And a little more humor from Bing translate:

Now, in 2012 [sic], the story is becoming to repeat. Only that more intense. The Republican Dan Sullivan has decided to contest the rural vote to Begich. Or, rather, remote. And a town 2,100 kilometers from the geographic North Pole in which 56% of the population is Eskimo has been, for example, Barrow. There are only 10 cities located more to the North in the world. Canada, Norway and Russia have each three, and Denmark two gold medals, in Greenland. For his part, Begich has strengthened his campaign among fishermen, an extremely important community in Alaska.

So as candidates to the Senate are devoted to meetings with the Patriarchs of the tribes and to accept traditional banquets of whale meat in peoples in whose garbage dumps do not roam rats, but polar bears. What is at stake, however, is much more. The most obvious is the control of the Senate. With legislative elections more uncertain in decades, everything can be finished depending on who wins in Alaska, and that, in turn, can end up being determined by any people as a Barrow.

El Mundo (The World) is Spain's second biggest print newspaper and biggest online paper according to Wikipedia.

The whole article is here.

Who Skips Fisheries Debate? [UPDATED]

[UPDATED 1:45pm:  Apparently, not Dan Sullivan any longer.  According to Lanie Welch's column in today's ADN:

"The lure of reaching a statewide audience was too much to pass up for U.S. Senate hopeful Dan Sullivan, who will be at the Oct. 1 fisheries debate at Kodiak after all.    Sullivan was able to reshuffle a packed travel schedule to fit in the fisheries event, said Ben Sparks, campaign manager. Sullivan initially was going to be in Bethel on a multi-day swing through Southwest Alaska during the time of the Kodiak event. “Dan recognizes the importance of Alaska’s fisheries, and our campaign has rescheduled our southwest swing to ensure that Dan could make the debate. He looks forward to a healthy exchange of ideas with Mark Begich on the future of Alaska’s fisheries, and is excited to attend the debate in Kodiak,” his campaign said in a prepared statement."

The original post below should be read with the above in mind.]

This letter to the editor was in the ADN Sunday. [I couldn't get the link to the ADN, but it was also in the Kenai Peninsual Clarion]:

"Who skips fisheries debate?    I had to ask myself this week does Dan Sullivan actually want to get elected in November? I’m not sure he does, since he chose to skip the fisheries debate in Kodiak. Or he is a complete fool and had no idea the giant mistake he made by turning down this debate.    Either way, Sullivan just proved what Sen. Begich and Democrats have been saying all along he doesn’t know or care about Alaska.    Bill Starnes"

Why couldn't he make it?  According to debate organizers, via Lanie Welch, ADN's fishing reporter:

"Sullivan campaign manager Ben Sparks told debate organizers that Sullivan does not have a prior commitment keeping him from the fisheries debate, but that “he is just too busy with all the traveling he is doing.” The two-hour debate is broadcast live to over 330 Alaska communities."

I think at least three more credible possibilities beyond the two Starnes gives:

1. He knows that Begich, after six years in the Senate and as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard knows his fisheries much better than Sullivan and that Sullivan would look bad in comparison.
2. He knows his policies as Attorney General and Natural Resources Commissioner - helping get rid of local input in development, on Pebble Mine, and other issues wouldn't sit well with the fishers anyway.
3. He's simply biding by the old saying, attributed, incorrectly it seems, to Abraham Lincoln, 

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Maybe a combination of all three.  He knew this was a fight he couldn't possibly win. 


[Note on dubiously attributed quotes:  The link goes to a website called Quote Investigator:  Exploring the Origins of Quotes.  It looks like a much better sources than all the spurious 'quote' sites that just copy things incorrectly from other places.   The discussion on this quote makes it highly unlikely that it came from Lincoln and also looks at similar sentiments from the bible.]

Nate Silver Has Alaska's US Senate Race 50-50

"Meanwhile, in Alaska – which has a track record of inaccurate polling — some models now perceive a slight advantage for the incumbent, Democratic Sen. Mark Begich. We think the polling is too thin and too inconsistent to warrant that prediction, particularly given that the GOP has not yet held its Aug. 19 primary."

This quote comes at the end of a FiveThirtyEight blog overview of US Senate races for November.  Overall, Silver says

". . . we continue to see Republicans as slightly more likely than not to win a net of six seats this November and control of the Senate. A lot of it is simply reversion to the mean.² This may not be a “wave” election as 2010 was, but Republicans don’t need a wave to take over the Senate.

 But, he's hedging his bets:

However, I also want to advance a cautionary note. It’s still early, and we should not rule out the possibility that one party could win most or all of the competitive races."

Why should we listen to Nate Silver?

For those who can't place the name, Nate Silver was the geeky statistician,  portrayed by Jonah Hill in the movie Moneyball, who helped the money-strapped Oakland A's pick winning ball players.   (The movie was based on Michael Lewis' book Moneyball.)

He took his statistical savvy into politics.  Wikipedia summarizes:

"The accuracy of his November 2008 presidential election predictions—he correctly predicted the winner of 49 of the 50 states—won Silver further attention and commendation. The only state he missed was Indiana, which went for Barack Obama by one percentage point. He correctly predicted the winner of all 35 U.S. Senate races that year. . .

In the 2012 United States presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, he correctly predicted the winner of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.^[11] That same year, Silver's predictions of U.S. Senate races were correct in 31 of 33 states; he predicted Republican victory in North Dakota and Montana, where Democrats won.

Silver's model includes polling data and a linear regression analysis of other factual data about candidates and voters.  From a FiveThirtyEight post in the New York Times (where Silver worked before moving to ESPN) on the methodology:

• A state’s Partisan Voting Index
• The composition of party identification in the state’s electorate (as determined through Gallup polling)
• The sum of individual contributions received by each candidate as of the last F.E.C. reporting period (this variable is omitted if one or both candidates are new to the race and have yet to complete an FEC filing period)
• Incumbency status
• For incumbent Senators, an average of recent approval and favorability ratings
• A variable representing stature, based on the highest elected office that the candidate has held. It takes on the value of 3 for candidates who have been Senators or Governors in the past; 2 for U.S. Representatives, statewide officeholders like Attorneys General, and mayors of cities of at least 300,000 persons; 1 for state senators, state representatives, and other material elected officeholders (like county commissioners or mayors of small cities), and 0 for candidates who have not held a material elected office before.

Silver's election track record has been damn accurate.  But there are also the intangibles that aren't reflected in measurable factors. 

This prediction on the Alaska race comes before the Republican primary (in two weeks) and so we don't even know who Begich's opponent will be. 

But Sen. Begich is a formidable candidate - details of legislation and people slide effortlessly from his memory banks to his lips; he knows how to put the right spin on things; he grew up in Alaska politics and has strong, long-term relationships with people all over the state; and he's a pragmatic politician who makes decisions based on his sense of the what Alaskans want and what will work.  He's also got a very aggressive campaign going - countering every negative ad as soon as it comes out and he's got an army of volunteers around the state going door-to-door.   

Of his potential opponents, Sullivan has the money, but not the Alaska cred.  Treadwell has the Alaska cred, but not the money.   And Joe Miller?  While this video of him literally blasting bullet holes through the Affordable Care Act will win him votes from the fanatical anti-Obama and pro-gun folks, it will sink his campaign among all other voters. 

If Silver has Begich at 50-50 based on the tangibles, I'd bet the intangibles will tip the scales in his favor.

Brat Wins In Virginia With 8% of Registered Voters. Will Cantor Pull A Murkowski?

[Nov. 7, 2014 - results of the general election here.]

By now, anyone reading this, unless they're in South Africa, knows that Republican House majority leader Eric Cantor lost his primary election Tuesday June 10 to David Brat. 

I'm writing this from Alaska and I don't know much about Cantor's district.  I did drive once from DC to Richmond which would have had me driving through a good part of the population center.  But I'm just gathering internet available data as I try to figure out what happened and what it might mean for his district in November and what it might mean here in Alaska. 

Here are the official election results from the Virginia State Government page:

As you can see, there were 65,008 votes cast.  (I don't know about absentee, but this is 100% of the votes cast Tuesday, apparently.)

So, what percent of registered voters in this district is that? 

From Virginia State Board of Elections website has a February 1, 2014 report on the number of registered voters in District 7.

Virginia District 7	2/1/2014
#of Precincts in District	234
# of Active Voters:	473,032
# of Inactive Voters	31,863
# of Total Voters	504,895

I'm sure that somewhere they have this information broken down by party, but I didn't find it and it's not important enough to spend too much time on.  And it was an open primary without much happening in the other races.   I'm just trying to get some ballpark idea of what happened.

If we take the active voters (473,032) in the district, then about  14% of the registered voters in the district participated.  And about 8% of the district's registered voters, voted for David Brat. 

For Cantor, the obvious deficiency was not getting his voters out.  Given the tone of the coverage of this race - "In an enormous political upset . . " for example - Cantor's supporters figured they didn't have to go to the polls.


Nathaniel Downes at Addicting Information attributes the loss to gerrymandering:

"The cause for this major upset boils down to the GOP’s overuse of gerrymandering. By carving out safe districts for their candidates in the general elections, the Republicans engineered a situation whereby fringe candidates within their own party now can cause primary challenges which can not only force out incumbents, it can enable for candidates who would do damage to the nation through their anti-government rhetoric to win seats in government."

The district did change in 2013 - since Cantor's last race - and it seems to have acquired a leg, so to speak, but probably overlaps the old district quite a bit.  But Downes' point is that it's more Republican than it was, not that there are different constituents.  Here are what I found as the old and new district borders:

District 7 Before 2013 Redistricting

Virginia District 7 after 2013

 

What about the Democrat?   They really weren't expecting to be players in November it seems.   The Downes (the guy at Addicting Info) writes:

"The original Democratic candidate for the district, Mike Dickenson failed to file the paperwork necessary to be on the ballot, although there has been some push for a write-in campaign. So, it looks like the field for Virginia’s 7th Congressional District is going to be dominated by the Tea Party and Libertarian candidates this year.
*UPDATE* It turns out that the Democratic Party of Virginia has pushed forward a candidate late yesterday, Jack Trammell. Like Dave Brat, he is a professor at Randolph-Macon College, and has not yet even gotten his campaign website up and running yet. For now it redirects to ActBlue, the Democratic PAC focused on internet fundraising."

Well, there's more than Democrats. Ballotopedia says:

"Brat, an economics professor at Randolph-Macon College, will face Democrat Jack Trammell, who is also a Randolph-Macon professor, Libertarian James Carr and write-in candidate Mike Dickinson, who failed to earn the Democratic endorsement."

So, if all that is correct,

• the Republicans have a Tea-Party candidate, David Brat, who upset the House Republican Majority leader, Cantor 
• there's a Libertarian candidate, James Carr, who presumably would eat into Brat's votes
• a last minute Democrat, Jack Trammel, a fellow faculty member at Randolph-Macon College with David Brat which gives new meaning to "campus politics'
• a write-in candidate who failed to file as a Democrat, Mike Dickenson

Will Cantor Pull a Murkowski?

In Alaska, when Sen. Lisa Murkowski lost the primary in 2010 to Joe Miller, there was a little known Democrat on the ballot to oppose Miller.  Murkowski was able to rally the economic resources of the Alaska Native corporations, and sufficient Democrats voted for her on the grounds that Scott McAdams, the Democrat, couldn't win, and Murkowski was far better than Miller.  She also got lots of Republican votes though official national Republican money stuck with the primary winner.

I don't know enough about Virginia's district 7 to be able to have a clue what might happen if Cantor decided to fight for his seat back.  Given that Brat won with only 8% of the registered voters, and given the Murkowski precedent, I'm sure it will be tempting.


What Does This Mean For Alaska?

My guess is that Joe Miller is a happy man tonight and that his Tea Party supporters will be energized.  The thought that Brat was outspent by Cantor almost  50 - 1, will motivate supporters of a lot of financially marginal candidates.

But Virginia's 7th Congressional district is only about 100 miles long and not nearly as wide.  You can drive to any house in the district in a day at most.  Campaigning in Alaska is much more expensive.  We have state house districts bigger than the whole state of Virginia.   And many villages aren't on the road system.  Hell, our state capital isn't on the road system (but you can get there by ferry.)  Unless you have a pilot's license or a friend who does, getting around the state is very expensive.  

I suspect that the coalition that elected Murkowski will reelect Begich in the end, especially if Miller is the Republican candidate again.  The big national conservative money is pushing relatively recent Alaska Dan Sullivan in the US Senate race, but Begich is a tenacious and savvy campaigner. 

American Petroleum Institute Thanks Sen. Begich for Keystone Vote

I got this postcard in the mail the other day.

Was I supposed to be happy about this?  I understand having a Democratic Senator in a state where red voters tend to turn out better than blue voters means we have a hybrid Senator who thinks (and probably is right) that he has to support big oil to get reelected.

But who sent it?  The other side gave that info on the bottom.

 

The American Petroleum Institute uses pictures of  pristine snowy mountains on both sides of the postcard.  No pipeline pictures.  No Kulluk oil rigs.  No oil company profit statements.  Just the beautiful Alaskan landscapes.  (Or something that looks like an Alaskan landscape.)  You'd think though they could have found a second Begich picture.   

I'd love to have been an invisible observer at the meeting where they decided to send this out.  What were there motives?  To piss off Begich's Democratic supporters?  To let Mark know this is what he gets when he votes right, but if he votes wrong . . .  

What's the message to his Republican opponents?  

On the simplest level, it's just asking Alaskans to call an thank Mark for his vote.  

Of course, the large coporations give money to everyone who might get elected.  They've got plenty and want that door to open when they come knocking. 

The American Petroleum Institute gave more money to the Democratic Governor's Association, according to Open Secrets, than to anyone else.  Given current disclosure laws post Citizens United, I'm not sure how much money is given, but not identified.  They list political contributions which I'm guessing are for 2012:

"CONTRIBUTIONS: $931,706

Contributions to candidates: $235,970
Contributions to Leadership PACs: $9,500
Contributions to parties: $128,226
Contributions to 527 committees: $558,010
Contributions to outside spending groups: $0"

But you'll notice they gave almost four times as much to 527 committees (that can fund campaigns without disclosing donors, if I understand it right)  than they gave to parties.


And the contributions pale compared to the $6 +  million they spend annually on lobbyists.

The Corporate State Of Alaska - And Now GCI and ACS Officially Create AWN

[This post has been sitting here partially written as I travel around and play grandpa, visit my mom, and I don't seem to have the time to get it done right.  Then there was more redistricting.  I didn't quite understand all the implications of this, but the potential negatives were being sent to me by my friend Jeremy Lansman who is one of the best informed people on radio, television, and other electronic technologies of communication.  I was going to claim my 'blogger's license' (a relative of poetic license) and just post it in draft form because I thought the issue important and I didn't see a lot of coverage elsewhere.  But it appears to be a done deal now so I'm putting this up as it was last March, with the addition of part of the Begich press release I got this morning.]

From a press release I got via email today:

"U.S. Sen. Mark Begich offered his support following today’s announcement from Alaska Communication Systems (ACS) and General Communications Inc. (GCI) that the two companies closed a transaction to create the Alaska Wireless Network (AWN), after receiving approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).  AWN is a wireless infrastructure joint venture that will combine the wireless networks of ACS and GCI.

“I applaud ACS and GCI for their willingness to be innovative and aggressive in the telecom sector,” said Sen. Begich. “They will not only be working together to build this robust wireless network, but they will also continue to compete for customers. It is critical for Alaskan companies to find ways to attract customers as big businesses, like Verizon Wireless, enter into the Alaskan marketplace.”

This begins the long rambling background to what's been sitting in my draft post file since last March 23:

One of the arguments for Alaska Statehood was to gain sovereignty and control over Alaska resources. Alaska had been essentially a colony that was exploited by different corporate interests like fishing, timber, and copper.  Decisions about Alaska resources were made by corporations operating Outside the state.

Today again, after only six years since the first political corruption trials began and about a dozen Alaskan politicians and businessmen were convicted of various forms of abuse of public trust, the Republicans have regained full control of the Senate, House, and Governor's office and things are in full swing.

We have a governor - a former Conoco-Philips lobbyist - who has been using the governor's office to try to give the oil companies about $2 billion a year tax cuts - while arguing we don't have enough money to take  care of relocating Alaska native villages that are threatened by the effects of oil on the climate. [Since I wrote this, the bill was passed and the referendum to repeal the bill has gotten enough signatures to get on the 2014 ballot.]

Fishing is still a murky mix of Alaska fisherman and international fishing companies.

Providence Hospital is already the largest private employer in the state, charges a lot more for health care than the rest of the US, and I'm guessing a lot of that money goes to the Providence mother ship Outside. 

The Governor has also helped get rid of coastal communities' rights to have a say on development that affects their livelihood and way of life by helping to destroy the coastal zone management act.  So that now the state with the most coastline is the only coastal state without a Coastal Zone Management Act.  This is part of the process of getting rid of any obstacles to big business development, any bumps along the way where the public can stand up and demand some sort of accountability. 

The Citizen Initiative to keep cruise lines from dumping their wastes in Alaska waters (among many other things) has now been gutted.  

In each case, the common theme is that large, Outside corporate interests, supported by the governor and the Republican leadership in the House and Senate, have worked to overturn protections for the Alaskan environment and people.  And most Alaskans either think this is good, don't know anything about it, or feel helpless to do anything, or they just buy new apps to distract themselves from all this.

GCI-ACS Merger

Now let's look at one more situation that is happening more quietly behind the scenes.  GCI (General Communications Inc.) has submitted a request to the Federal Trade Commission (FCC) to share facilities in rural Alaska with ACS (Anchorage Communications Service).  GCI has also is seeking to buy a CBS affiliate and an NBC affiliate.

[Note:  ACS was ATS, Anchorage Telephone Service, a telephone utility that was owned by the Municipality of Anchorage.  The City sold the telephone service and it is now a private company.  GCI is an Alaska based company that began as a private company offering competing telephone service, cable, and internet.]

This is noteworthy because GCI now controls about 70% of cable.  It's also noteworthy to remember that Ted Stevens was flying on a GCI plane with GCI executives to a GCI retreat that he regularly attended when he and others died when the plane crashed.  (Yes, the US Senator should know people from all sectors, and Stevens did.  But it's clear that those with big bucks who can host our politicians on sweet fishing junkets have more say than those of us who can't.  Not because their message is more right, but because they have more access and influence.)


Jeremy Lansman, the owner of Fireweed Communications, including KYES, Anchorage Channel 5, has submitted comments to the FCC.  (I'd note that KYES is one independent  locally owned televisions left in the United States.)  Unfortunately, the arguments are fairly abstract and complex.  There are a whole lot of issues intertwined from costs to consumers in dollars, to accessibility of programming, to democracy itself.  Here's an example from Fireweed's initial filing:

Part VI: Risks of Monopoly
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has stated that in enforcement of the Sherman Anti-Trust and Heart-Scott-Rodino act is necessary to look beyond the situation of the present moment to see if a monopolist might have power to increase consumers’ costs in the near or far future28.    Furthermore in the area of Information Communication Technology and Broadcasting, that apart from keeping the marketplace working, it is well understood that freedom of the press is a prime condition to enable democratic processes of the forming of opinions.    There are two different, albeit related issues at stake here. Even if a door hinge manufacturing monopolist can charge outrageous prices, hinge technology (for example) would not affect our democracy. However, the nature of Technology that transports news, opinion, and viewpoint would automatically influence the nature of our democracy if in any way the technology were used in a way that might favor one opinion over another. Even entertainment TV drama carries and brings across the normative value system of the scriptwriters and their view of the world in terms of past, present and future. For this reason concentration of control of the technology of media deserves a much higher level of scrutiny than other goods and services.

[Since I wrote this, he's posted more challenges, as have others.]

I contacted Fireweed owner, Jeremy Lansman, a friend of mine, and gave him a set of questions that I though might make this clearer to the public.  Here are the questions and answers:

What Do I Know?   1.  What will be the possible
consequences for the Alaskan consumer?

Lansman:  I can see two extreme  outcomes, and possible shades between the
extremes.  One, especially in the rural areas...   a nasty monopoly.  
In this scenario the two companies, ACS and GCI, would own the only
physical facility Alaska Wireless Network (AWN) in the bush, and would
not be price regulated, and could charge the owners (ACS and GCI) a lot
more than it would had competition continued. ACS and GCI would pass the
monopoly cost along to consumers.  AWN would be very profitable, and
pass the profits back to its owners, who would be rewarding their
investors with monopoly "rents".

In another extreme scenario the common company, AWN, would only charge
its reasonable costs, not have profit, and pass the savings of joint
operation on to ACS and GCI which then would pass the savings on to users.

In the first scenario you might see some resemblance to Aleyaska
Pipeline.  The Alaskan oil pipeline is jointly owned by oil producers,
and charges producers to transport the oil to Valdez. Aleyaska is price
regulated, a big difference.  We found nothing about regulating AWNs
rates. The State of Alaska tax revenue gos up if the oil companies
charge less to transport oil, so the owners have an incentive to raise
prices, in order to reduce taxes. Increased in transport fees are given
back to the owners, so the argument is about what is a fair price for
transport.  As the pipeline is regulated, the tussle over fair pricing
is played out at in public at the regulator, the Regulatory Commission
of Alaska (RCA).  Unless special provisions are put in place, AWN will
not be subject to price regulation.  So all that could take place in
private.

  What Do I Know?  a.  in urban areas

Lansman:  AT&T and soon, if their plans pan out, Verizon, will have physical
facilities (towers) in urban Alaska.  From what I have read, economists
believe the ideal number of mobile phone competitors is three.  Fewer
results in less competition, thus higher prices, while more results in
more physical facility cost, thus higher prices.   This theory is not
iron clad, as one of the highest per minute cost locations in South
Africa with 3 operators, and lowest cost is India with far more than 3. 
Anyway, with AT&T, Verizon, and  GCI maybe combined with ACS we will get
3 or 4 competitors, so the expert forecast might be that the result in
urban AK would be close to ideal.


What Do I Know?   b.  in rural areas

Lansman: I covered that above.

What Do I Know?   2.  Consequences for television
stations in general or KYES and how does that affect the viewer?

Lansman:   As I point out, TV viewing is migrating to various platforms, and
studies show a rapid uptake of use by mobile devices.   I defined TV to
include any audio/video material that is sent to multiple viewers, at
any time.  That makes your videos .. the ones you post.. TV.   So the
question I raise, can AWN, GCI or ACS block your videos...er...pardon...
short TV shows?  THe answer is a conditional yes.  I believe they cannot
on "wireline" internet.  That I think is covered under the new network
neutrality rules.  The same rules do not apply to "wireless".  Wireless
is known as cellular.  However, we see some new services that link to
your mobile device.. which might be a tablet, or cell phone, or laptop
with a cellular dongle. The services might be special wi-fi signals that
operators send out in hot spots, or might be little cell phone base
stations that people are putting into their homes, or may be regular
cell towers. So, I believe that if ACS and GCI live with net neutrality,
all will be well in terms of overt censorship.

On the other hand, GCI will have quite a powerful influence over
conventional TV broadcast.  And a lot of people still use conventional
TV.  The influence GCI has will be due to their cable penetration.   The
leverage will be very powerful.  Until most viewing migrates to other
signal streams.. GCI will be able to determine who wins in the TV game.
  
What Do I Know?  3.  How could GCI and ACS get the
economies of shared rural facilities yet still protect internet and
television and phone users?

Lansman:  One way?  Make AWN a not-for profit.  You have any ideas?  As for TV,
apply net neutrality to AWN and its users.  As for GCI and the network
affiliates?  Maybe the purchase just cannot be allowed. That is, GCI has
an incentive to shut down competitors.   Think about that.
 
What Do I Know?: 4.  Could Verizon provide the
competition and thus lower all the internet and phone service?

Lansman:  I doubt it.   It is not efficient to build overlapping rural cell
service... besides GCI and ACS get federal funding, broadband and
Universal Service money for their rural services.   I don't yet know a
lot about how that works.




Those who say government is the problem forget that Business essentially runs government - through lobbies, campaign contributions, and their access to Congress and ability to influence them.

I don't know if this deal is good or bad for Alaska.  We have two locally started companies  in competition with national giants.  Perhaps consolidation makes some sense for Alaska as they compete against the big players.  But I do know that our Anchorage internet access costs more and is much slower than you get Outside and GCI and ACS have been the big players there.  

And media plays a big role in influencing how people vote.  The media that package the news for most Americans is getting more and more consolidated.  

From here.