Thought you might like to know

The thing about initiatives to fix this or change that – and always for our own good – is that too often they are merely the tools of what the late Washington Post columnist David Broder, in “Democracy Derailed,” described as “millionaires and interest groups” itching to advance their causes.

The idea is to get around the messy, acrimonious legislative process. With initiatives, there are no public hearings of any consequence, no vetting, no testimony, no oversight, no debate, no amendments.

Broder correctly concluded such petitions provide “lucrative business for a new set of political entrepreneurs”  and are “alien to the spirit of the Constitution and its careful system of checks and balances.”

The “Save our Salmon” initiative appearing on November’s ballot appears to fit the bill.

Its top contributors include, according to a must-read piece in the Alaska Journal of Commerce:

“The Alaska Conservation Foundation, the Alaska Center (formerly the Alaska Center for the Environment), Cook Inletkeeper, the Wild Salmon Center and Salmon State. The initiative itself was crafted by environmental law firm Trustees for Alaska, which is well known for its legal activism against resource development in the state.

“According to campaign disclosures, about $730,000 of the $1.1 million in reported contributions to the effort are classified as non-monetary, with the Alaska Center topping the list at $357,000 followed by the Washington, D.C.-based New Venture Fund….”

The New Venture Fund, by the way, is not new to Alaska. It was heavily involved in the drive to link Permanent Fund applications to voters’ registration. Its self-stated goal is “to realize social and environmental change….” Its net assets in 2016 were more than $321 million.

InfluenceWatch points out, “Critics argue that New Venture Fund is a “dark money” organization, serving as a way for left-leaning groups to anonymously funnel money toward various advocacy issues, such as attacking vulnerable Republicans or pushing state-level environmental restrictions.”

Thought you might like to know.









2 Responses to Thought you might like to know

  1. John London September 16, 2018 at 9:56 am

    Some of these groups are fronts for funneling money to the main organization. There is a huge environmental organization on the East Coast that tells the donors that they educate children (libs always use the children emotion angle) at enviro camps and yet locals say they never see any children in the area) just fake props to make it seem like they are educating the children.

    The place is a huge money funnel. The unaware donors are being had big time.

    Much of the urban enviro nerd BS of today is cultural Marxism, pure and simple.

  2. Morrigan September 17, 2018 at 9:08 am

    We may be in a heap of trouble.
    If, as it seems: (a) state and local governments have metastasized beyond reasonable control, (b) state and local voting systems are corrupted beyond reasonable oversight, and (c) the initiative process is no more than “lucrative business for a new set of political entrepreneurs… alien to the spirit of the Constitution and its careful system of checks and balances”,
    one wonders what’s next when productive Alaskans decide to drain their swamp, but find that conventional options for doing so do not work, or are not allowed to work.


Leave a Reply

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

For information, sizing, and rates of banner advertising space we have available, please e-mail Mark Hopkin at, or call him at (907) 276-4262.