Gov. Sean Parnell didn’t report as much money as at least one of his challengers in the governor’s race, but he spent less during the period than his other two opponents. All told, Parnell raised $285,000 during the latest reporting period, which runs from February 2 until July 18, which is 30 days before the primary. That number included $100,000 that was given to Parnell from the state Republican Party. However, given that Parnell is the incumbent, his numbers looks less impressive when compared to the other two candidates in the race, Democrat Byron Mallott and independent Bill Walker. But compared to them he was relatively frugal. Parnell’s campaign only spent $170,000 during that period and still has $450,000 cash on hand going into the general election.
Mallott reported receipts of $297,000 during this reporting period. However, $48,000 of that was his own money. The Alaska Democratic Party gave him $59,000, He spent $277,000 in the same period. After debts, Mallott only has about $55,000 cash on hand. As was true with his last report, he’s spending a good chunk of money on campaign staff and consultants. His biggest single expense was for $48,700 he paid to the Mellman Group, a D.C. based polling firm.
Independent gubernatorial candidate Bill Walker reported raising a hefty $259,000 but he spent about $268,000, and $170,000 of his total was his own money. Most of Walker’s money was spent on advertising.
Democrat lieutenant governor candidate Hollis French raised more than $62,000 and has about $67,000 cash on hand, not including a $5,000 debt to the Alaska Democratic Party. The other Democrat in the race, Bob Williams, raised about $30,000, leaving him with about $13,000 cash on hand.
Alaska state Sen. Lesil McGuire, who dropped out of the lieutenant governor’s race in June., only reported $1,350 in donations from 9 donors, all of whom gave in April and May. State legislators aren’t able to fundraise during the legislative session. McGuire appeared to spend about $70,000 for PR and for media buys with Optima Public Relations, which is owned by her former husband Tom Anderson.
As of 11 p.m., aka the blogger’s bedtime, lieutenant governor candidate Dan Sullivan’s reports weren’t available online.
One more report of note for tonight: Rich Mauer at the ADN crunched the numbers on the ballot initiative to repeal oil taxes. He found that four organizations who oppose repeal, have raised more than $13.5 million combined and spent $12.2 million. Meantime, the pro-repealers have only raised $115,500 and spent almost $109,000. All of this money and last I heard, the polls show only a razor thin margin either way.
I’ll have more on some of the state House and Senate races tomorrow.
Contact Amanda Coyne at amandamcoyne@yahoo.com
I understand that ENSTAR is supposed to simply pass through increases and decreases in the cost of gas without realizing a profit or loss. I also understand that ENSTAR profits from selling increased volumes of gas and therefore is motivated to transport as much gas as possible and actually does not benefit at all from gas conservation efforts promulgated by the State.
I am suspicious when these adjustments fluctuate as they do especially given the long history of consumption in Cook Inlet. We basically paid for a storage facility and I want to understand why that elasticity in supply provided by CINGSA is not being used to purchase gas in volumes at prices that could benefit consumers. I am not convinced that this years’ weather should result in such drastic swings in gas cost adjustments especially that a “warm spring” alone should result in a 72% increase in the last quarterly adjustment ($4.457/mcf to $7.6738/mcf) I am not convinced my interest are being protected adequately when a regulator (RCA) allows the regulated (ENSTAR) to completely control the gas cost adjustment process by adopting regulations that minimize the requirement for justification for the requested change. Finally, my concerns are not assuaged when I read of ENSTAR executives attending a fundraiser for the current Governor who appoints the members of the RCA. The last appointee was a former legislator of the same political party as the Governor. I remain skeptical and I think it is a healthy skepticism
To Mr or Ms Willis – your comments about ENSTAR are not accurate. You somehow suggest that the rate increase is an insider deal that stuffs the pockets of the utility. The fact is that ENSTAR’s operational costs have been reduced over the past couple of years. The primary influnce on the costs off yor gas bill is the commodity. Remember, ENSTAR only gets paid for the transportation of the commodity. Also they get a set rate of return. Actually higher gas costs means less delivery (transportation of the commodity) because consumers employ conservation measures and ENSTAR’s profits go down. Sounds counter intuitive but is correct from my understanding. Still think the rest of your commentary reflects a solid and interesting perspective that I partially agree with. Frankly, I think all 3 candidates are weak. I wish that Charlie Huggins would have run for Governor.
A few thoughts:
First, how obscene is it that Big Oil can spend over $13 million to fight the 50,000 Alaskans who want a “Yes” vote to repeal a massive giveaway of OUR money?
“YES!” on one.
The greed of Big Oil is disgusting. They purchased the legislature, the governor, and now they want to buy an election. A transfer of billions out of Alaska to London and Houston, while Alaskans- the owners of the oil- face massive budget deficits and teacher lay offs. Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon rakes in over $500,000.00 per week. Our money!
Good on Bill Walker for doing what he is doing. Frankly the disaster that Parnell has created is going to be tough to fix. We now have billion dollar deficits, and we will be broke in about 4 years. We clearly need competent leadership, and anyone paying attention to the governor’s race realizes Walker is the best guy for the job.
Thanks Bill Walker!
Jon,
Certainly there is no guarantee of this increase being temporary or do you mean temporary in the context of the last quarterly adjustment? The first three quarters of 2014 showed changes to the price of gas increasing 19.77% in the first quarter, then decreasing 41.18% in the 2nd quarter, then increasing 72.26% in the 3rd quarter, for an annualized trend of 49%.
While I can appreciate the impact of an occasional seasonal temperature variation, with all the historic consumer data available how can ENSTAR be so wrong so often? Why does ENSTAR weigh its’ consumption projections so heavily on probably the least controllable variant – ambient temperature? They now have the CINGSA storage facility that we subsidized. Why not use it to buffer demand instead of apparently purchasing gas each month in direct response to consumer demand which fluctuates so greatly in some years (like this year)?
Also, why does the RCA tolerate the existence of rate change procedures so burdensome that a formal request takes around 450 days? Why did the RCA create a streamlined procedure of quarterly gas cost adjustment that, in the last case, began with a 15 May letter requesting adjustment and the ADN published the rate increase in July (about 60 days). This “streamlined procedure” affords no protection to a consumer attempting to budget for energy consumption.
This quarterly adjustment uses a complex methodology that defies understanding by consumers and now ENSTAR may propose doing it monthly. This “regulated monopoly” process might not be the best way to go at this in the future. Something that Bill Walker might want to look into because you can bet the incumbent is more than satisfied with the status quo.
Lynn, my understanding is that the rate increase is temporary. Apparently ENSTAR overestimated how much gas it would need during the winter and needs the rate increase to cover its losses. Is that wrong?
So Mike, I’m certain that a state wide race for governor cannot be bought for $170k. Remember that Walker is running as an independent so he’s not looking to the Republican party for $100,000 checks. When Walker says he wants to represent all Alaskans, he puts his money where his mouth is. He’s not beholden to any donor or political party. I find that refreshing. And yes, $170k is a big number but it shows a level of commitment unseen in this state for a long time. As one of the most corrupt states in the nation, Alaskans need to take a serious look at Walker whose ads say “my only special interest is Alaskans.”
Bill Walker, running as an independent, threatens the two-party “rent a politician” system of government in Alaska. Therefore, Walker will not receive funds from the usual suspects.
To understand how the system now works in Alaska today simply read the guest list at a Bill Sheffield fund raiser for Parnell. Then, for example, ponder why ENSTAR rates are increasing at an annual rate of 49%. The RCA (Regulatory Commission of Alaska) members are appointed by the Governor. According to the RCA: “… utility companies are allowed to adjust rates associated with natural gas without having to go through an entire rate proceeding…” and “…CP (RCA Consumer Protection) cannot override an RCA-approved tariff.” Coincidence?
It is pretty interesting to see how many candidates put their own money into their campaigns. I can understand a grand total of a few hundred bucks, but Walker’s $170k just blows my mind. What kind of support does he really have if he has already spent enough money to buy a respectable house in parts of the US and it is still July? It is rather distasteful as it implies Walker thinks he can simply buy the Governorship. It is one thing to align yourself with backers that think the way you do (wherever you are on the political spectrum), but it is another to just pony up massive amounts of money like this and still insist on being seen as a creditable candidate with broad support.