Daily Archives: September 6, 2021

It was a pitch tuned for a politically polarized audience. Erik Finman, a 22-year-old who called himself the worlds youngest Bitcoin millionaire, posted a video on Twitter for a new kind of smartphone that he said would liberate Americans from their Big Tech overlords.

His splashy video, posted in July, had stirring music, American flags and references to former Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Donald J. Trump. Conservative pundits hawked Mr. Finmans Freedom Phone, and his video amassed 1.8 million views. Mr. Finman soon had thousands of orders for the $500 device.

Then came the hard part: Building and delivering the phones. First, he received bad early reviews for a plan to simply put his software on a cheap Chinese phone. And then there was the unglamorous work of shipping phones, hiring customer-service agents, collecting sales taxes and dealing with regulators.

I feel like practically I was prepared for anything, he said in a recent interview. But I guess its kind of like how you hope for world peace, in the sense you dont think its going to happen.

For even the most lavishly funded start-ups, it is hard to compete with tech industry giants that have a death grip on their markets and are valued in the trillions of dollars. Mr. Finman was part of a growing right-wing tech industry taking on the challenge nonetheless, relying more on their conservative customers distaste for Silicon Valley than expertise or experience.

There are cloud providers hosting right-wing websites, a so-called free-speech video site competing with YouTube and at least seven conservative social networks trying to compete with Facebook.

Parler, the right-wing social network funded by conservative megadonor Rebekah Mercer, found itself fighting for its life earlier this year after Apple, Google and Amazon pulled their services. Another social media company popular with the far right, Gab, has fought to gain traction without a place on the Apple or Google app stores. And Gettr, a social network created by veterans of the Trump administration, was immediately hacked.

Mr. Finman, who has bleach-blond hair and a brown, chin-strap beard, calls himself an agent of change for both tech and Republican politics. In a freewheeling interview over lamb kebabs at a Turkish restaurant in Manhattan, Mr. Finman weighed in on British politics; quoted both Marcus Aurelius, the Roman emperor, and Karl Lagerfeld, the German fashion designer; and explained why he thought the modern Republican Party was pathetic. The partys leaders complain about Big Tech censorship, he said, but do little about it.

In 2014, New York magazine profiled Mr. Finman as a 16-year-old from outside Coeur dAlene, Idaho, who had struck it rich when, a few years earlier, he spent a $1,000 gift from his grandmother on Bitcoin.

By 2017, his riches had topped $1 million and he was posting photos online of him posing with YouTube celebrities, getting on and off private jets, and lighting $100 bills on fire. But he tired of the cryptocurrency scene. I actually hate talking about Bitcoin, he said. Its like Rolling Stones, play the hits.

He dove into politics. He said that by the age of 12, he considered himself a libertarian. (It was at a rally for Ron Paul, the former presidential candidate, when someone first told him about Bitcoin.) But his politics shifted when Mr. Trump arrived on the national political stage. I drank the Kool-Aid in 2016, he said.

Over the next several years, Mr. Finman said, he became worried about what he viewed as Silicon Valley censoring conservative voices. He also spotted a business opportunity in other Republicans who shared his concerns. So he aimed at the dominance of Apple and Google and tried to create a new right-wing smartphone.

Politics is the new national pastime, baby, Mr. Finman said. Even nonpolitical things like a freaking pillow end up becoming political, he added, referring to Mike Lindell, the MyPillow founder, who has peddled lies about the 2020 election.

To make a smartphone, however, he had to rely on Google. The companys Android software already works with millions of apps, and Google makes a free, open version of the software for developers to modify. So Mr. Finman hired engineers to strip it of any sign of Google and load it with apps from conservative social networks and news outlets. Then he uploaded the software on phones he bought from China.

Google and Apple declined to comment.

To unveil the phone, he recorded an infomercial in which he cast the tech companies as enemies of the American way. Imagine if Mark Zuckerberg banned MLK or Abraham Lincoln, he said in the video. The course of history would have been altered forever.

At the same time, a series of right-wing personalities pitched the phone to their followers. They stood to earn $50 for every customer who used their discount codes.

Thousands of people bought the $500 phone. Others, including some conservatives, quickly panned the animated pitch. Its not a bad instinct, said Zachary Graves, a tech-policy specialist at the Lincoln Network, a libertarian think tank. But when I first saw the video, I was waiting for them to say Live from New York, its Saturday night!

Quickly, news outlets reported that the Freedom Phone was based on a low-cost handset from Umidigi, a Chinese manufacturer that had used chips shown to be vulnerable to hacks. Mr. Finman, who marketed the device as the best phone in the world, was on the defensive.

In an interview in July, Mr. Finman admitted that Umidigi made the phone but still said he was 100 percent sure it was more secure than the latest iPhone. Apple has tens of thousands of engineers. Mr. Finman said he employed 15 people in Utah and Idaho.

Mr. Finman said he wasnt surprised by the criticism, but he was taken aback by the sales. That left him juggling responsibilities he hadnt planned for, including certification with the Federal Communications Commission and special rules for shipping devices with lithium batteries. He hired people from his hometown in Idaho to staff a makeshift customer-service center and he struggled to sort out sales-tax issues.

Within a month of the phones release, Mr. Finman had a solution: sell someone elses phone and act as the branding frontman. Just as Mr. Finmans political inspiration, Mr. Trump, has sold Trump steaks and Trump vodka without running a cattle ranch or a distillery, Mr. Finman unburdened himself of the difficult task of actually managing a company that makes phones.

When the going gets tough, bring in the 50-something-year-olds, Mr. Finman said in a recent interview. They can be the ones with the sleepless nights.

He teamed up with a 13-year-old firm in Orem, Utah, called ClearCellular, which had already created a phone that was disconnected from Apple and Google. The company also had experience with logistics, shipping and customer service.

The companies added the American Flag wallpapers and conservative apps to ClearCellulars device and called it the Freedom Phone. Mr. Finman said that the phone also has his PatriApp Store, though ClearCellular provides the technological support for the app store.

Mr. Finman will collect a cut, though they wont say how much.

Reviews of the new phone havent been positive. CNET, the product-review site, said the $500 device appeared to be nearly on par with a $200 budget Android phone.

Michael Proper, 46, the founder of ClearCellular, said Mr. Finman was really building a brand. Creating a phone company is ambitious, but not only software, security, hardware, but supply chain, inventory and capitalization, he added. Mr. Finmans strength is connecting with folks inside of the freedom community.

Mr. Finman said he had orders for about 12,000 Freedom Phones, putting revenue at around $6 million in just over seven weeks. Mr. Finman and Mr. Proper said they had about 8,000 phones left to ship. Mr. Finman declined to connect The New York Times with any customers.

Mr. Finman said that Mr. Proper is like my Phil Knight, and the Freedom Phone is like the Jordans, referring to the Nike co-founder who helped turn Michael Jordans shoes into a cultural and commercial hit.

The arrangement has freed Mr. Finman to focus less on running a phone company and more on building a political operation. In a telephone interview last week from Washington, where he was meeting with potential investors, he said the Freedom Phone could take on liberals in addition to freeing his customers from Big Tech.

He said that during elections, he planned to make the Freedom Phone direct users to nearby polling stations. And he aimed to create a news feed on the phone where he could promote conservative articles.

I see it absolutely as one of the ultimate political tools, he said. Everyone has one in their pocket.

More here:
Meet the Freedom Phone, a Smartphone for Conservatives - The New York Times

It was always a fools errand.

The botched withdrawal from Afghanistan plastered across cable news is emblematic of the entire slow-rolling quagmire: a disaster everyone could have predicted and no one prepared for. While partisans are quick to place blame on their least favorite current or recently ousted president, a catastrophic end was baked into this cake from the beginning.

When Congress passed the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), they went far beyond initiating war in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda. Congress gave near limitless and indefinite authorization for the executive branch to wage war against anyone, anywhere in the world. This broad grant of war-making power was counterproductive to the mission of justice for the 9/11 attacks, setting the stage for 20 years of mission creep in Afghanistan and multiple sequels.

To close the chapter on these failed forever wars, Congress must repeal the 2001 AUMF.

From the earliest days of the republic, the founders sought to protect America from the mistake of unchecked executive war-making power. The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it, wrote James Madison to Thomas Jefferson. It has accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature." In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Congress abandoned this constitutional separation of powers, but the 2001 AUMF was not the only option to pursue justice.

Former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) proposed invoking the congressional power to issue letters of marque and reprisal, providing targeted authorization to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden and specific individuals involved in planning the attacks. Those opportunists who never let a good crisis go to waste mocked the idea of such a limited response. How could the US war machine and all its allied profiteers make their billions if we didnt put on a massive war? asks Ron Paul today, reflecting on the wars end.

Rather than narrowly pursuing Al Qaeda operating in the region, the 2001 AUMF gave the Bush administration a blank check to charge blindly into a full-scale occupation and regime change war. The fledgling Taliban regime had offered three times to negotiate the surrender of bin Laden in the lead up to bombs falling, but those offers were rejected. According to Bob Woodwards book, Bush at War, despite CIA suggestions to split the Taliban off from Al Qaeda, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld insisted on lumping the two enemies together because Al Qaeda didn't have enough targets to bomb.

Even still, justice could have been served by Christmas if American forces hadnt become so distracted fighting the Taliban, allowing Al Qaeda to escape. With bin Laden pinned down at Tora Bora and facing certain defeat, General James MattisJames Norman MattisDefense & National Security The mental scars of Afghanistan House panel advances 8B defense bill Who authorized Afghanistan in the first place? MORE had 4,000 marines at the ready and asked for permission to seal the border. His request was denied and the architect of 9/11 escaped across the border to Pakistan for ten years.

The War in Afghanistan would meander with no clear mission, strategy, or victory conditions for another twenty, becoming what the 2019 Afghanistan Papers called a self-licking ice cream cone, existing only to perpetuate itself. By the wars end, it would drain America of $2.2 trillionand rack up a death count of more than 6,200 U.S. military personnel and contractors and 170,000 Afghan people (not counting the wars sequels in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen).

For bin Laden, it was a tremendous success. My fathers dream was to bring the Americans to Afghanistan, said Omar bin Laden to Rolling Stone. He would do the same thing he did to the Russians. I was surprised the Americans took the bait like a bull that runs after the red scarf. Afghanistan was always a trap bin Laden laid for America. The 2001 AUMF allowed our leaders to march right into it. They should have known better.

In the words of Babur, first emperor of the Mughal Empire, six hundred years ago, Afghanistan has not been and never will be conquered, and will never surrender to anyone. To date, history has proven him right. From Alexander the Great to the Mongol Empire, many before him had tried. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the British Empire and Soviet Union would also learn this lesson the hard way.

Understanding Afghanistan's history, the CIA baited the Soviets into the sandtrap throughout the 1980s, funding bin Laden-affiliated terrorists to give the U.S.S.R. their own Vietnam. Even with brutal tactics, the Soviets could not maintain control of this region. Dominated by harsh terrain, brutal winters, and warring tribes, projecting power through Afghanistan proved as impossible for the Soviets as it had for every invading empire throughout history. After a long, bankrupting decade, they withdrew. Three years later, there would be no more Soviet Union.

To avoid a similar fate, America must learn the lessons of history. We must leave the Graveyard of Empires once and for all and resist temptations to be drawn back. Finally, to apply the lesson, Congress must repeal the 2001 AUMF that made this whole quagmire possible and never grant such unchecked war powers to the executive branch ever again.

Eric Brakey is the senior spokesperson at Young Americans for Liberty (YAL). He served in the Maine Senate from 2015 to 2018, presiding as senate chairman for the Health and Human Services Committee.

See the rest here:
Who authorized Afghanistan in the first place? | TheHill - The Hill

Saudi Arabias crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman (left), talks with Saudi king Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud in Riyadh on December 9, 2018.(Bandar Algaloud / Courtesy of Saudi Royal Court via Reuters)

On a problematic ally; the current politics of the GOP; Willard Scott and Barbara Bush; and more

One of the most annoying people in the world is the person who sees both sides and even sympathizes with both sides. You want to side with either Smith or Jones, X or Y. You want everyone else to, too. There must be no SmithJones or XY alliance.

Speaking of alliances: Our relationship with the Saudis is endlessly problematic. Personally, I would love to cut them loose. I have done a fair amount of reporting on Saudi oppression. I have talked with the family members of political prisoners. This is a vicious, nasty regime.

Think bone saw.

And yet I am told, by wise and experienced heads, that our alliance with Saudi Arabia is vital. I wrote a post about this two years ago: The Damn Saudis. I pressed a former president, George W. Bush, on the subject in 2016. In the summer of 2002, I pressed a national-security official on the subject. (Not the president, I should stress, but not far beneath, either.) My gosh! I said. What about the Saudis and al-Qaeda and the hijackers and all? The official said coolly and knowingly The Saudis have done everything we have asked of them. And we really needed the help then bad.

For about 20 years, there has been a debate over releasing classified information pertaining to Saudi Arabia and 9/11. One side says, Release! Transparency! Knowledge! The other side says, Foreign-policy delicacy. Dark, messy world. Realism. I sympathize with both sides always have. (This is annoying, for me not least.) But I would err on the side of releasing.

Which apparently President Biden has as well. I recommend a column by George F. Will (I could write those words every week): here. His bottom line is right in the title above the column: Its about time.

On August 12, as horror was unfolding in Afghanistan, Mitt Romney tweeted, America must not stand idly by as our Afghan friends are brutalized by the Taliban. He spoke of honor and simple humanity. There is no time to spare, he said. Josh Mandel had a response, suggesting that we send RINO Mitt to Kabul, while bringing American troops home.

(RINO means Republican in Name Only. As recently as 2012, Romney was the Republican presidential nominee. But he is certainly an alien in his party now.)

In more recent days, Mandel has called Alexander Vindman a liar, a traitor, and a commie.

(Vindman was born in the Soviet Union and was brought by his father to America when he was three. The childrens mother had died. Alexander eventually joined the U.S. Army, rising to lieutenant colonel. He was wounded in Iraq.)

There is a lot more in the Mandel account than that, but turn to J.D. Vance who, like Mandel, is running for the Republican Senate nomination in Ohio. Recently, another Republican politician, Congressman Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina, referred to January 6 rioters who have been arrested as political prisoners and political hostages. Vance pronounced this correct.

He also said, The white working class loved Donald Trump. As punishment, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will kill as many of their children as they can. (This was in response to an article headed White House proposes removing penalties for fentanyl trafficking-related offenses.)

One could go on. The point is, this is a race to the bottom: the race to be the most low-down, the most demagogic of all. Do Mandel and Vance mean what they say? Or are they just playin? Playing to the base? Being base in order to win the base? Its hard to tell.

But the low-down and demagogic approach is effective otherwise, people wouldnt adopt it. Its what gets the votes, the clicks, the donations, the likes. This is true in politics and the media, both.

Ive been thinking of William F. Buckley Jr., the founder of National Review, a lot in recent days. He labored for 50, 60 years to create a decent Right a Right free of nativism, crankery, proud ignorance, and general boobishness. (You recall that, in 2002, Michael Walzer published a famous essay titled Can There Be a Decent Left? That question remains on the table, as I see it.)

WFB labored to create a conservative politics that was smart, informed, persuasive, and even stylish. He could throw elbows with the best of them but the elbows were sharp, in more than one sense. They were intelligent, and well aimed, and had a point. Often, they were witty. WFB won a lot of people over (including me).

(Everywhere I go in the world, people, on learning where I work, say, Bill Buckley was my hero, or, Bill Buckley changed my life. It happened at the Salzburg Festival last month.)

I believe that people who admire WFB, and support his efforts, have their work cut out.

Early in 2017, Thomas Massie, the Republican congressman from Kentucky, said something extraordinary and extraordinarily candid. He was talking with Emily Jashinsky of the Washington Examiner, who wrote,

To explain 2016, Massie looks to previous cycles. Rand Pauls upset victory in 2010, Ron Pauls enthusiastic following in the 2012 presidential race, and his own win in the 2012 congressional primary all looked, at first glance, like a libertarian wave.

Uh-huh. And?

All this time, Massie explained, I thought they were voting for libertarian Republicans. But after some soul searching I realized when they voted for Rand and Ron and me in these primaries, they werent voting for libertarian ideas they were voting for the craziest son of a bitch in the race. And Donald Trump won best in class, as we had up until he came along.

Shrewdly perceived.

About a week from now, there is a gubernatorial election in California a recall election. One of the GOP candidates is Kevin Faulconer, the former mayor of San Diego. He has a long record, and a solid one. As mayor, he dealt with some difficult and important issues, such as homelessness. I interviewed and wrote about him earlier this year.

And who is the leading GOP candidate? The candidate with all the juice behind him? A talk-radio host of course. Nothing could be more emblematic of todays politics.

Last week, Megha Rajagopalan, the foreign correspondent, tweeted, The most American push alert ever? She was referring to the below alert from the New York Times:

The Most Boring Election Ever?

In Germany, the race to replace Chancellor Angela Merkel is the most important in years. But the two frontrunners are anything but exciting.

Love is the most powerful force in the world. Unless its hatred. Unless its sex. Anyway, there has been a millennia-long competition.

The aforementioned J.D. Vance said, I think our people hate the right people. (By our people, I believe he means Trump Nation, basically.) Stephanie Slade wrote about this in a piece for Reason. She quotes Vances press secretary as saying the candidate strongly believes that the political, financial and Big Tech elites...deserve nothing but our scorn and hatred.

Huh. I can think of a lot of political, financial, and Big Tech elites who deserve a lot more than scorn and hatred who, in fact, deserve praise and gratitude. I like the laptop Im typing on. And YouTube is the greatest invention since the wheel.

Hubert Humphrey spoke of the politics of joy. There is also the politics of hatred and it is very, very effective. It has been so since the world began. When I was coming of age, the Left employed it, big-time the politics of hatred, resentment, grievance. The Right has now caught up, and more.

Ill tell you a secret not a secret, because Ive told it a hundred times in this column: I loved Ronald Reagan, yes but, even more, I hated his enemies. Their hatred of him, I felt personally.

Do you remember this line from The Simpsons? I have quoted it often. Homer is trying to assuage Apu about his (Apus) impending fatherhood. Kids are the best, he says. You can teach them to hate the thingsyou hate. And they practically raise themselves, what with the Internet and all.

In any case, beware too much politics of hate. It can be bad for the soul individually and societally.

Speaking of Reagan, did you see this obit? William G. Clotworthy, Saturday Night Live Censor, Dies at 95. Hang on, what does that have to do with Reagan? Ill quote:

He became especially close friends with the host of General Electric Theater, Ronald Reagan, and was among those encouraging him to move into politics in the 1950s. When Mr. Clotworthy told Reagan he should run for mayor of Los Angeles, he recalled, Reagan replied, Nah, its president or nothin!

(Last year, I wrote an essay called The Question of Experience: On presidential candidates and what theyve done. Some interesting stuff in there, you may find.)

Another obit: Robert Middlekauff, Historian of Washington and His War, Dies at 91.

Middlekauffs best-known book is The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 17631789. I will quote a part of the obit that absolutely rang my chimes:

The phrase glorious cause comes from George Washington, the books central figure. In his prologue, Professor Middlekauff noted that the title was not ironic: The Americans, he wrote, believed that their cause was glorious and so do I.

One more obit: Willard Scott. Margalit Fox has written up his life fabulously. It is an entertaining obit of an entertaining guy. He was an adornment to society, as Paul Johnson would say. He added to the gaiety of life, as Johnson would also say. Let me quote a story from the obit by Fox a story I never knew, and love:

In January 1989, the countrys new first lady, Barbara Bush, broke ranks from the inaugural parade for her husband, George H.W. Bush, to dart over to Mr. Scott, broadcasting from the sidelines, and plant an impromptu kiss on his cheek.

I dont know Willard Scott, Mrs. Bush explained afterward. I just love that face.

Would that we all had such faces! Thanks for joining me, everyone, and see you later.

If youd like to receive Impromptus by e-mail links to new columns write tojnordlinger@nationalreview.com.

See the original post here:
Seeing the Saudis clear, &c. - National Review

Leighton Radner is running for one of two vacancies on the Seward City Council. Radner is a night auditor who is active in the Libertarian Party. He has experience conducting candidate training at the Gold Rush 2021 Libertarian Event and at the 2021 Youth Americans for Liberty Revolution.

During an interview with the Clarion at the Seward Community Library and Museum on Aug. 27, Radner said hes a part of the Libertarian Partys Mises Caucus, which advocates Ron Paul-style libertarianism, including cutting government spending, letting private citizens take over the aspects that were cut and city fees for things like business licensing.

Those are the types of actions hed like to see the Seward City Council take.

Id like to privatize the sectors of Seward that are doing things, not very well, Radner said. These are places like utilities departments, road maintenance, stuff like this. These are things that the city is supposed to be doing, that, in my opinion, can be done better by private citizens.

Radner said he was motivated to run for the council in part because of how the city responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. He criticized the implementation of a citywide mask mandate and capacity limits for Seward businesses, which he said harmed the economy and affronted personal liberties.

Everybodys opinion on COVID is different and I respect that, Radner said. My point of view is if you want to get the vaccine, get the vaccine. If you want to wear a mask, wear a mask, but it should be voluntary. It shouldnt be up to some overarching power to tell you what you can and cant do with your body.

Radner said he was especially troubled by the city reducing business capacity during the pandemic, adding that he has considered opening a business. More broadly, he said it would be good for Seward to invest in small business owners and not put all of (its) eggs in the cruise ship basket.

Ultimately, what makes up small towns like Seward is small business owners, its not giant conglomerates, Radner said.

If elected to the council, Radner said he hopes to limit the role of government in residents lives and cast what he calls principled votes. He spoke in opposition to politicians saying one thing and then voting in a different way.

My whole political philosophy is principles, Radner said. If youre a Democrat or Republican, I dont have a problem with you, I just want you to be principled. I want you to vote and do the things that you say youre going to do, and I dont feel like thats happened here.

Among Radners principles, he said, are lowering taxes, which he said is theft from residents and privatizing city services.

He said hed originally planned to run for city council next year, but that the small applicant pool for the upcoming election helped inform his decision to run. If nothing else, Radner said he hopes to garner more name recognition for whenever he runs for office again.

Im not going to leave till I win as far as that goes because this has to be fixed, Radner said. Its my point of view that the only way its going to happen is if somebody runs.

The municipal election is on Oct. 5.

Reach reporter Ashlyn OHara at ashlyn.ohara@peninsulaclarion.com.

See the original post here:
Leighton Radner: 'This has to be fixed' - Kenai Peninsula Online

The Alaska State Capitol in Juneau. (James Brooks / ADN)

JUNEAU In five hours of public testimony late last month, a line of Alaskans criticized members of the Alaska Legislature for failing to come up with a reliable formula for Alaskas annual Permanent Fund dividend.

Legislators have heard similar testimony since 2017, but this years comments brought a new wrinkle: A growing number of Alaskans, dissatisfied with a lack of change, are calling for a constitutional convention to address the issue.

Voters are asked once every decade whether they want to call for a convention, and the next vote is in November 2022.

Because conventions arent limited to one subject, conservatives and libertarians are embracing the trend, saying it could allow them to pursue long-held goals like a ban on abortion, public funding for private schools, or changes to the way judges are picked.

Michael Chambers is a libertarian who is urging Alaskans to vote yes on the convention next year. He has a list of items hed like to see addressed and said the PFD issue is 100% helping the cause.

I dont mean this in a negative way, but for the low-information voter, it absolutely makes a difference, he said. The more the PFD festers out there and sits there, the more ... the low-information voters are the ones that say, Hey, wait a minute, this is enough!

Legislators say theyre not certain that a constitutional convention will bring conservative nirvana. Alaskas political divides could mean a convention split between conservatives and progressives, just as the Legislature is today.

What may start out looking like a solution on the PFD could turn into a social battleground like weve never seen in this state, said Senate President Peter Micciche, R-Soldotna.

I think there is a potential for unintended consequences beyond the scope of anything we can currently imagine, he said.

In a convention, uncertainty abounds

Alaska hasnt had a constitutional convention since its first, which took place in late 1955 and early 1956, but voters are asked every 10 years if they want to hold one.

In 1970, 1972, 1982, 1992, 2002 and 2012 they said no, mostly by wide margins. (The 1970 vote passed by about 500 votes but was overturned by the Alaska Supreme Court, which said the wording of the question was too leading. A re-vote in 1972 changed the result.)

Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, said things could be different this time around.

I think theres a real chance that people could vote for a constitutional convention, he said, adding that any convention would be unpredictable.

If you go to a constitutional convention, you just dont know where it goes. You dont know whos going to be the delegates, you dont know how the decisions will be made. And you just dont know whats going to happen, he said.

Unless the Legislature passes a different guiding law, a convention would generally follow the rules in place in 1955.

Delegates to the Alaska Constitutional Convention at work, Fairbanks, winter 1955-56.

That means voters would likely be asked to vote for delegates during the 2024 election, and might be asked to approve a resulting draft in 2026.

Bob Bird, chairman of the Alaskan Independence Party, has been trying for years to convince Alaskans to vote for a convention, most recently in columns published by the Watchman, an Alaska-based Christian website.

He said hes been talking to groups he considers Ron Paul constitutionalist and said concerns about the Permanent Fund dividend unite them, but so does a desire to change the states judicial system.

The Alaska Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled in favor of abortion rights, and there has been a steady conservative push to change Alaskas judicial selection laws in order to overturn those rulings.

I cant tell you which is the most energizing in regards to the call for a con-con, he said, using shorthand for the constitutional convention.

Chambers said that while it might seem ironic, hes seeing libertarian interest in a PFD amendment.

We libertarians believe in less government, and the best way for you to have less government is if they dont have money. And the easiest way in Alaska for them not to have money is to give it directly to the people, he said.

Opponents and proponents see momentum

Bird said hes seeing growing interest in a convention, regardless of the issue.

I think its a small snowball thats picking up momentum, he said.

Those concerned about a convention are also seeing that momentum.

A group called the Permanent Fund Defenders has been urging lawmakers to guarantee Permanent Fund dividend payments in the state constitution. For at least two years, members have been warning legislators that unless they act, voters might seek a convention.

Juanita Cassellius, a spokesperson for the group, said the prospect of a convention is worrying because it could turn into a can of worms. Despite that prospect, many Alaskans might be willing to risk it in order to end perennial debates over the dividend.

There is a very vocal group that will get attention because its a simple message, she said. I think it would be very catchy. And now, the people in our group are very afraid of that.

Sen. David Wilson, R-Wasilla, represents one of the most conservative legislative districts in the state. He said that when the topic comes up in small groups, he reminds people that a convention of delegates is likely to resemble the mix of views present in the Alaska House of Representatives.

There, a coalition of independents, Democrats and moderate Republicans holds a narrow majority.

I think thats part of the issue: Theres a lot of unknowns, he said.

The Alaska Senate is taking the prospect of a convention seriously enough that some state senators have begun researching the potential costs and how a convention might operate.

Chambers and others said that if the Alaska Legislature fails to settle the dividend issue by the end of the 2022 regular legislative session, it will become a significant issue in next years races for governor and Legislature.

He speculated that the push will begin ramping up around February, because thats where campaigns start coming out and people start taking positions.

Continued here:
Supporters of a big PFD are starting to back a constitutional convention. Alaska's conservatives and libertarians see an opportunity. - Anchorage...