There is an extensive article out today at the Anchorage Daily News covering how much money the ANC PAC donated to the Murkowski Campaign.  The article is surprisingly well balanced, and puts the PAC spending in the context of the the Citizens United decision, which has been blamed for the dramatic increase in political spending this cycle.  I can only assume there will be more coverage on this at least until December 2nd, which is the next deadline for filings.

In case you’re unfamiliar with the situation, Senator Lisa Murkowski was the establishment incumbent from the GOP.  She suffered a surprise loss in the primary to the Tea Party candidate, Joe Miller.  Miller was backed by his own so-called “super PAC” in the primary, where they spent about $600,000.  After her loss, Murkowski decided to enter the race as the write-in candidate.  Because polling in Alaska is notoriously difficult, and because a write-in campaign by an incumbent is generally unheard of, figuring out who would win the Alaska Senate race became almost impossible.  Some hopefuls even thought that Murkowski and Miller would split the vote, leaving the Democratic candidate in the race just enough breathing space to win.  Murkowski essentially won in a blowout, though the Miller campaign continues to do what it can, including filing a motion on Friday in federal district court, to change the outcome (complaining, inter alia, that write in ballots misspelling “Murkowski” should not be counted).  The federal district court has deferred to the Alaska state courts on the matter.  Here is the order.

Prior to election day, Joe Miller filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission about the spending by Alaskans Standing Together, the PAC created by the ANC’s.  Miller tried to argue it wasn’t appropriate for the ANC’s to be donating to the Murkowski campaign because of their extensive federal contracts.  Joe Miller had come out against all 8(a) contracting for Native Corporations and against other money that goes to rural Alaska.  This article concludes with the FEC experts the author spoke with agreeing that nothing will come out of the complaint (though this is probably an easy bet given the FEC’s overall difficulty enforcing its regulations due to time, staffing and statutory constraints).