Connect with us

Finance

Campaign finance data shows most Anchorage Assembly races are close on fundraising

Published

on

Campaign finance data shows most Anchorage Assembly races are close on fundraising
Election officials prepare the Assembly Chambers for in-person voters on Monday, March 24, 2025. (Bill Roth / ADN)

Half of the Anchorage Assembly’s seats will be decided in this April’s municipal election. According to campaign finance reports submitted to the Alaska Public Offices Commission earlier this week, many of the six races are close in terms of fundraising, with some exceptions.

In the years since Anchorage shifted to mail-based balloting for its elections, many candidates have generally adjusted their spending strategies, retaining cash until March, when voters begin receiving their ballot packets. Several of this cycle’s candidates appear to have held off on major spending. But a number of challengers seeking to knock off incumbents have made significant expenditures already.

Voters will begin receiving their ballots in the mail in mid-March, and ballots are due back by the April 7 deadline.

District 1 – Downtown/North Anchorage

Assembly Chair Chris Constant is barred by term limits from running again. Four candidates are vying to fill his seat, though only two reported significant fundraising and campaign expenditures.

Sydney Scout reported raising $50,130 since launching her campaign last year. She’s spent a little more than half of that, with close to $23,000 in cash still on hand.

Advertisement

Among Scout’s donors are a number of political action groups representing labor and public safety unions. She saw a few larger contributions from local donors but overwhelmingly reported smaller contributions under $500. Among her financial supporters are many prominent local politicos, including several current members of the Assembly and Anchorage School Board, as well as Democratic groups.

Most of her $27,509 in expenditures so far have gone to campaign services paid to Amber Lee Strategies, as well as $7,500 to True Blue Associates, a strategy firm run by two former progressive bloggers who have worked for Democrats in the Legislature in the past. There are a number of purchases for ads on Meta’s social media platforms, Facebook and Instagram, as well as in-person campaign events.

Justin Milette reported raising $36,771 in his Alaska Public Offices Commission disclosure, with at least $13,000 from Milette himself. He received several other major donations, including $5,000 from a loan officer at Alaska Growth Capital, another $5,000 from a local attorney and $2,500 from independent investor Justin Weaver. That was about the same amount Weaver contributed to Scout’s campaign.

Milette received contributions from a number of prominent local political figures and advocates, including Republican gubernatorial candidate Treg Taylor and Sami Graham, who briefly served as chief of staff for former Mayor Dave Bronson.

Most of Milette’s spending — $22,566 — has gone to the firm Red Dirt Campaigns for a range of services, including donor data, printing, canvassing data and media products.

Advertisement

Two other candidates filed to run for the seat, Nicholas Danger and Max Powers. Danger reported no campaign income. Powers had not submitted a fundraising disclosure report to APOC as of Thursday.

District 2 – Eagle River

Assembly member Scott Myers, who currently represents the communities north of the Anchorage Bowl, is not running for a second term.

First-time candidate Donald Handeland reported raising more than $40,000, of which a little more than $26,000 has been spent so far.

Though Handeland reported contributing $2,500 of his own money, he raised the overwhelming majority of his funds through relatively modest donations from well over a hundred people.

Many prominent conservatives show up on Handeland’s donor rolls, including former heads of the Alaska Republican Party Tuckerman Babcock, Randy Ruedrich and Peter Goldberg; both of the district’s current Assembly members, Myers and Jared Goecker; and many of the individuals who regularly contributed to Bronson’s mayoral campaigns.

Advertisement

Handeland reported spending more than $13,000 on campaign services from Red Dirt Campaigns. He also bought digital ads on social media. He split costs with four other candidates for a fundraising event called “Axe the Tax” at a local ax-throwing parlor. The fundraiser was premised on candidates’ shared opposition to a proposed city sales tax, which was eventually pulled back by Mayor Suzanne LaFrance in early January.

Campaigning against Handeland is Kyle Walker, who ran unsuccessfully to represent the district during the last cycle. Of the $8,258 he reported raising, $5,500 came from union PAC contributions. The remainder were small individual donors.

Though Walker reported a little more than $4,000 in expenses so far, he listed another $13,666 in financial commitments to the Ship Creek Group for campaign management and a comprehensive suite of services. Ship Creek has been a major player in local politics, working primarily with moderate and left-leaning candidates, but is attached to only one other Assembly campaign this cycle.

District 3 – West Anchorage

The race is a rematch of the 2023 contest for the same seat, in which Assembly Vice Chair Anna Brawley beat challenger Brian Flynn by a 17-point margin. Then as now, there is a lot of money flowing to both candidates.

So far, Flynn has outraised Brawley but is also spending down his war chest more aggressively, primarily on campaign services by firms both inside and outside of Alaska.

Advertisement

Brawley reported $52,044 in campaign contributions, including thousands of dollars from just under a dozen organized labor PACs. Her largest individual donor was retired banker Victor Mollozzi, who contributed $4,000 in two separate installments. Among her prominent backers are current members of the Assembly and school board, Democratic former U.S. Sen. Mark Begich and Democratic gubernatorial candidate and former state Rep. Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins.

Brawley has spent several thousand dollars so far on campaign services from Amber Lee Strategies, the same firm that handled her 2023 run. She’s also paid for printed signs, as well as access to the Alaska Democratic Party’s voter information. But most of her resources are in reserve. Brawley listed $17,400 committed to the The Mobilization Center, a local outfit that handles field operations for political campaigns.

Flynn reported raising $81,663. Among his contributors are a number of prominent local Republican and conservative politicians, including outgoing School Board member and current Assembly candidate Dave Donley, Republican former House Minority Leader and current state Rep. Mia Costello, and former Anchorage first lady Deb Bronson.

Flynn received a few hefty donations from individuals. John and Kari Ellsworth, who own part of the Anchorage Wolverines junior hockey franchise, gave a combined $6,500. Business owners Teresa Hall and Diane Bachman each gave $5,000.

According to Flynn’s APOC report, he’s spent $63,414. The biggest portion of that, more than $21,000, has gone to Optima Public Relations, a Wasilla-based firm that primarily handles conservative and Republican political campaigns. He also spent more than $7,000 on direct mail handled by national Republican consulting firm Axiom Strategies, and several hundred dollars more to its polling arm Remington Research for text messaging services. A $3,700 expenditure was listed to former Assembly candidate Travis Szanto for “putting up signs, sign frames.”

Advertisement

District 4 – Midtown

Incumbent Felix Rivera is terming off the Assembly. The race to replace him is between two older candidates who both have experience with local political campaigns, and are roughly even on their fundraising and expenditures so far.

Dave Donley has served as a Republican in the Alaska Legislature, and is winding down three terms on the Anchorage School Board. He reported raising close to $39,000 so far, of which he’s spent almost $28,000. A number of influential conservative politicians, both current and former, chipped in to his campaign, including gubernatorial candidates Treg Taylor and Shelley Hughes, as well as former Anchorage mayors Rick Mystrom and George Wuerch. He also received contributions from several union PACs.

Donley’s main expenditures include services provided by Red Dirt Campaigns, which range from consulting work and data to social media and content production. He’s also spent money advertising on conservative opinion blogs.

Paralegal and former nurse Janice Park reported raising $42,226, and has spent less than half of that. Park has unsuccessfully run several times for legislative positions as a Democrat. She received contributions from several current and former Democratic lawmakers, as well as current members of the Assembly and the Anchorage Democrats. Her largest contributor was Justin Weaver, the private investor, who so far has donated $14,000 to Park.

Park has made a lot of small ad buys to Meta for social media reach, as well as on traditional analog printed signs. But her largest expenditure is for “campaign consulting, including communications, compliance, and strategy” to True Blue Associates.

Advertisement

Kim Winston, a third candidate who formally filed for the seat, reported no income to APOC.

District 5 – East Anchorage

Incumbent George Martinez is fending off a challenge from Cody Anderson, a retired non-commissioned Air Force officer and church pastor.

Martinez raised close to $11,000, most of it in new contributions from individual donors and unions, on top of $5,000 in money carried over from a past campaign. Several current Assembly members chipped in modest amounts, along with a $300 contribution from the Anchorage Democrats.

Martinez only listed $5,634 in campaign spending so far. The two largest expenditures in his APOC report were $1,000 for “promotion/advertisement” to a company based in Miami, Florida, and $1,256 to Alaska Airlines for “travel,” with no additional details listed in the report.

Anderson reported raising $45,878, however his campaign finance disclosure listed payments to his campaign manager and other substantial expenditures as income, distorting the total by more than $16,000, according to a review of his APOC report.

Advertisement

Among those donations are thousands of dollars from employees at Mountain City Church, where Anderson works, including $1,000 from former head Jerry Prevo and $2,000 from lead pastor Ron Hoffman. The Anchorage Republican Women’s Club donated $750.

Anderson’s biggest expenditures listed were $5,500 to his campaign manager for various services and $7,500 for content creation and social media placement to Stephanie Williams, who worked as a special assistant under former Mayor Bronson before resigning in 2021.

District 6 – South Anchorage

Incumbent Zac Johnson is running for a second term against Bruce Vergason, whose background is in business and construction, as well as a third candidate, Janelle Anausuk Sharp, an environmental scientist.

Johnson reported $33,272 in contributions, with $9,239 spent and more in future financial commitments to a local political firm.

Johnson received contributions from several organized labor groups, along with current and former members of the Assembly.

Advertisement

He listed $11,500 in future payments committed to Ship Creek Group for comprehensive campaign management services.

In his APOC filing, Vergason listed $43,843 in fundraising and $17,052 in spending. He received major contributions from local business owner Susanne Gionet and physician John Nolte, who donated $5,000 each.

On top of $6,290 paid to Optima for campaign work, Vergason also paid $2,460 to election data firm i360 for canvassing services, along with significant outlays for sign printing. Vergason was part of January’s ax-themed fundraiser, coordinating with Handeland, Anderson, Donley and Flynn on the joint event.

Sharp appears to have raised around $3,500. Though her APOC disclosure listed a significantly higher figure, it erroneously categorized expenses as income. Cheryl Frasca, who is listed as her campaign treasurer, has a long record of handling compliance reports for political campaigns, including several current Republican gubernatorial candidates, and headed the municipality’s Office of Management and Budget under Bronson.

Outside of a $679 contribution to Optima for campaign logo design, Sharp’s biggest expenditure was $4,233 to The Business MD for services that include “assisting with general campaign strategy and organization, communications guidance, and outreach planning to help strengthen voter connection organization, all of which is advisory in nature.” The company is run by a local businesswoman focused on emotional intelligence coaching.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Finance

Morgan Stanley sees writing on wall for Citi before major change

Published

on

Morgan Stanley sees writing on wall for Citi before major change

Banks have had a stellar first quarter. The major U.S. banks raked in nearly $50 billion in profits in the first three months of the year, The Guardian reported.

That was largely due to Wall Street bank traders, who profited from a volatile stock exchange, Reuters showed.

But even without the extra bump from stock trading, banks are doing well when it comes to interest, the same Reuters article found. And some banks could stand to benefit even more from this one potential rule change.

Morgan Stanley thinks it could have a major impact on Citi in particular.

Upcoming changes for banks

To understand why Morgan Stanley thinks things are going to change at Citi, you need to understand some recent bank rule changes.

Advertisement

Banks make money by lending out money, which usually comes from depositors. But people need access to their money and the right to withdraw whenever they want.

So, banks keep a percentage of all money deposited to make sure they can cover what the average person needs.

But what happens if there is a major demand for withdrawals, as we saw during the financial crisis of 2008?

That’s where capital requirements come in. After the financial crisis, major banks like Citi were required by law to hold a higher percentage of money in order to avoid major bank failures.

For years, banks had to put aside billions of dollars. Money that couldn’t be lent out or even returned to shareholders.

Advertisement

Now, that’s all about to change.

Morgan Stanley thinks Citigroup could see an uptick in profit. Getty Images

Capital change requirements for major banks

Banks that are considered globally systemically important banking organizations (G-SIBs) have a higher capital buffer than community banks as they usually engage in banking activity that is far more complicated than your average market loan.

The list depends on the size of the bank and its underlying activity, according to the Federal Reserve.

Current global systemically important banks

A proposal from U.S. federal banking regulators could drastically reduce the amount that these large banks have to hold in reserve.

Changes would result in the largest U.S. banks holding an average 4.8% less. While that might seem like a small percentage number, for banks of this size, it equates to billions of dollars, according to a Federal Reserve memo.

Advertisement

The proposed changes were a long time coming, Robert Sarama, a financial services leader at PwC, told TheStreet.

“It’s a bit of a recognition that perhaps the pendulum swung a little too far in the higher capital requirement following the financial crisis, making it harder for banks to participate in some markets,” he said.

Citi’s upcoming relief  

Citi is a G-SIB and as such, is subject to the capital requirement rules. And the fact that it could get 4.8% of its money back to spend elsewhere is why Morgan Stanley is so optimistic about the bank.

In a research note, Morgan Stanley analysts said they expect Citi’s annualized net income to be better than expected due to the upcoming capital relief.

Advertisement

While Citi stated its return on average tangible common equity (ROTCE), a type of financial measure, to be close to 13% by 2028, “the fact that Citi’s near-term and medium-term targets excluding capital relief were only marginally below our expectations including capital relief actually suggest upside to our numbers if Citi can deliver,” the note said.

More bank news

In fact, Citigroup’s own projections are likely conservative and it’s likely to show improvement each year, the analysts expanded.

“We have high conviction that the proposed capital rules will be finalized later this year and expect Citi can eventually revise the medium-term targets higher, suggesting further upside to consensus,” the Morgan Stanley analysts wrote.

Related: Citi just added an AI agent to your wealth management team

Advertisement

This story was originally published by TheStreet on May 11, 2026, where it first appeared in the Investing section. Add TheStreet as a Preferred Source by clicking here.

Continue Reading

Finance

Couple forced to live in caravan buy first home as ‘stars align’ in off-market sale

Published

on

Couple forced to live in caravan buy first home as ‘stars align’ in off-market sale
Natasha, 34, and Luke, 45, settled on their new home last month. (Source: Supplied)

Natasha Luscri and Luke Miller consider themselves among the lucky ones. The couple recently bought their first home in the northwest suburbs of Melbourne.

It wasn’t something they necessarily expected to be able to do, but some good fortune with an investment in silver bullion and making use of government schemes meant “the stars aligned” to get into the market. Luke used the federal government’s super saver scheme to help build a deposit, and the couple then jumped on the 5 per cent deposit scheme, which they say made all the difference.

“We only started looking because of the government deposit scheme. Basically, we didn’t really think it was possible that we could buy something,” Natasha told Yahoo Finance.

RELATED

Last month they settled on their two bedroom unit, which the pair were able to purchase in an off-market sale – something that is becoming increasingly common in the market at the moment.

Advertisement

Rather perfectly, they got it for about $20-30,000 below market rate, Natasha estimated, which meant they were under the $600,000 limit to avoid paying stamp duty under Victoria’s suite of support measures for first home buyers.

“They wanted to sell it quickly. They had no other offers. So we got it for less than what it would have gone for if it had been on market,” Natasha said.

“We didn’t have a lot of cash sitting in an account … I think we just got lucky and made some smart investment decisions which helped.”

It’s a far cry from when the couple couldn’t find a home due to the rental crisis when they were previously living in Adelaide and had to turn to sub-standard options.

“We’ve managed to go from living in a caravan because we were living in Adelaide and we couldn’t find a rental with our dogs … So we’ve gone from living in a caravan, being kind of tertiary homeless essentially because we couldn’t get a rental, to now having been able to purchase our first home,” Natasha explained.

Advertisement

Rate rises beginning to bite for new homeowners

Natasha, 34, and Luke, 45, are among more than 300,000 Australians who have used the 5 per cent deposit scheme to get into the housing market with a much smaller than usual deposit, according to data from Housing Australia at the end of March. However that’s dating back to 2020 when the program first launched, before it was rebranded and significantly expanded in October last year to scrap income or placement caps, along with allowing for higher property price caps.

Continue Reading

Finance

WHO says its finances are stable, but uncertainties loom – Geneva Solutions

Published

on

WHO says its finances are stable, but uncertainties loom – Geneva Solutions

A year after the US exit from the global health body, WHO officials say finances are secure, for now. But amid donor cuts, rising inflation, and future economic uncertainties, will funding be sufficient to meet its needs?

Earlier this month, senior officials at the World Health Organization (WHO) told journalists in a newly refurbished pressroom at the agency’s headquarters that its finances were “stable”. Following a year that saw its biggest donor withdraw as a member, forcing it to cut 25 per cent of its staff, its financial chief said that 85 per cent of its 2026 and 2027 budget had been financed.

“While we are looking at resource mobilisation, we’re also looking at tightening our belts,” Raul Thomas, assistant director general for business operations and compliance, explained, admitting that the WHO “will have great difficulty mobilising the last 15 per cent”.

Sitting at the centre of the press podium, surrounded by his deputies, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO director general, backed up Thomas’s outlook. “We are stable now and moving forward”, since the retreat of the United States from the health body, he said. The Ethiopian noted that the WHO’s financial reform, allowing for incremental increases in state member fees, has been a big plus.

Advertisement

Mandatory contributions have historically accounted for only a quarter of the organisation’s total funding. States have agreed to raise their contributions by 20 per cent twice, in 2023 and in 2025. Further increments are scheduled to be negotiated in 2027, 2029 and 2031 to bring mandatory funding up to par with voluntary donations that the agency relies on. The WHO also reduced its biennial budget for 2026 and 2027 from $5.3 billion to $4.2bn.

“Our financing actually is better,” Tedros emphasised. “Without the reform, it would have been a problem.”

Read more: Nations agree to raise their WHO fees in wake of US retreat

Nonetheless, the director general, now in his final year at the UN agency, warned that member states should not assume that the financial road ahead will be clear. “The future of WHO will also be defined by how successful we are in terms of the assessed contribution increases or the financial reform in general.”

As west retreats, others step in

Suerie Moon, co-director of the Global Health Centre at the Geneva Graduate Institute, explains that every year at the WHO, there’s “a non-stop effort” to ensure funding. She says a continued reliance on non-flexible, voluntary funding earmarked for specific projects, as well as donors withholding contributions – sometimes for political leverage – complicates the organisation’s financial plans. Meanwhile, ongoing cuts and predictions of a global economic downturn stemming from the war in the Middle East may further aggravate the situation, as costs rise and member states focus on national spending needs.

Advertisement

Soaring prices driven by the conflict and supply chain disruptions have already affected the WHO’s procurement of emergency health kits for crises, officials at the global health body said. “We are continuing to negotiate at least from a procurement standpoint on how we can bring down a little bit the prices or reduce the increases, but we are seeing it across the board,” said Thomas.

Altaf Musani, WHO director of health emergencies, meanwhile, said aid cuts have already deprived roughly 53 million people in crisis situations of access to healthcare.

Last month, Thomas told the Association of Accredited Correspondents at the UN at the end of April that the agency is looking at non-traditional, or non-western, donors for funding to close the biennial 15 per cent funding gap. “It’s not that we won’t go to the traditional donors, but we’re expanding that donor base.”

Since the dramatic drop in funding from the US, formerly the WHO’s biggest contributor, Moon highlights that there hadn’t been a “sudden jump by non-traditional states to compensate for the US”. Last May, at the World Health Assembly, China pledged $500 million in voluntary funding until 2030, a sharp rise from the $2.5m it contributed over 2024 and 2025.

The WHO did not respond to questions from Geneva Solutions about how much of the pledged amount had been disbursed. China’s mission in Geneva did not respond to questions raised about the funding.

Advertisement

Other countries, particularly Gulf states, have meanwhile been increasing their voluntary contributions to the organisation in recent years. Similarly to “western liberal democracies have in the past”, Moon explains that they may be seeking “to raise their profile and prioritise health as one of the issues that they would like to be known for”. She noted that the shift in the UN agency’s list of top donors may affect how it manages the money.

‘Sustainable’ spending

Amid these financial uncertainties, WHO executives say the organisation is also reviewing its expenditure through “sustainability plans”. This includes working more closely with collaborating centres, including universities and research institutes that support WHO programmes and are independently funded. On influenza, for example, the WHO works with dozens of national centres around the world, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the US,

When asked about any plans for further job cuts, Thomas denied that these were part of the WHO’s current strategies, but could not rule them out entirely as a future possibility. Instead, he said, the organisation was “looking at ways to use funding that may have been for activities to cover salaries in the most important areas”.

Meanwhile, WHO data shows that the number of consultants employed by the agency by the end of 2025 decreased by 23 per cent, slightly less than the staff reductions. Global heath reporter Elaine Fletcher explained to Geneva Solutions that consultants continue to represent a significant proportion of the agency’s workforce, at 5,844 – including an overwhelming number hired in Africa and Southeast Asia – compared with regular staff numbering 8,569 in December.

Upcoming donor politics

The upcoming change in leadership will also be a strategic moment for the organisation to boost its coffers.  Moon says the race for the top job at the organisation may attract funding from candidates’ home countries, which could be seen as a strategic opportunity. 

Advertisement

Given the relatively small size of the WHO budget, compared to some government or agency accounts, “you don’t have to be the richest country in the world to dangle a few 100 million dollars, which could go a long way in their budget,” the expert notes.

The biggest ongoing challenge, however, will be whether major donors will announce further aid cuts. In the medium and longer term, “countries will have to  agree on the step up every two years, and there’s always drama around that.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending