New revelations from a Federal Election Commission complaint filed by Americans for Public Trust expose a scandalous scheme in Alaska's U.S. Senate race, where a "spoiler" candidate, derisively known as "Decoy Dan," is alleged to have illegally colluded with a Democrat dark-money group. This intricate plot, designed to confuse voters and manipulate the outcome, strikes at the very heart of election integrity and the fundamental trust Americans place in their electoral process.

Americans for Public Trust (APT) outlined in its FEC complaint how "Decoy Dan" — a candidate sharing the exact name as incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan — may have brazenly violated federal election laws by coordinating with a shadowy dark-money operation. Disturbing new reporting from The New York Times further details how Democrat candidate Mary Peltola’s campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) allegedly actively recruited candidates to sow confusion and tilt the critical Alaska U.S. Senate race.

This is not mere political gamesmanship; it suggests a sophisticated and potentially illegal conspiracy to influence a pivotal race and, by extension, the balance of power in the U.S. Senate. Americans demand accountability and clear answers regarding what truly transpired in Alaska and whether federal election laws were indeed flagrantly breached.

The New York Times investigation revealed that in the summer of 2025, Mary Peltola’s aides explicitly directed a staffer to hunt for every "Dan Sullivan" in Alaska. Operative Jerid Kurtz, introduced to the Peltola campaign by DSCC aides, reportedly contacted a Peltola aide in late May, confirming he had just arrived in Petersburg — the small fishing village where Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. ("Decoy Dan") resides — shortly before "Decoy Dan" filed to run for Senate.

Petersburg, famously "reachable only by air and sea," also hosted Peltola herself for a campaign event on May 26, a mere three days before "Decoy Dan" officially filed his candidacy. While "Decoy Dan" has, predictably, denied any connection, claiming he has "not been in contact with her or her campaign," the circumstantial timing raises immediate red flags.

Further damning evidence from The Times included text messages where Peltola advisors, observing a focus group, quipped, "Do we have a scheme for you." Despite the Peltola campaign and the DSCC issuing boilerplate denials of recruitment, and "Decoy Dan" insisting his campaign is "genuine," the facts on the ground paint a far more cynical picture.

While much public discourse has naively focused on the legality of "ballot-stacking," missing the forest for the trees, the true legal bombshell is contained within Americans for Public Trust’s comprehensive September 8 complaint to the FEC.

The complaint meticulously details how "Decoy Dan’s" only known campaign consultant, identified through metadata, simultaneously held a leadership position at a dark-money group. This group, the 907 Initiative, then poured over half a million dollars into vicious attacks against Sen. Dan Sullivan in the three months leading up to the August primary. This dual role—working for the "Decoy Dan" campaign while also leading an outside group actively attacking his primary opponent—represents a potential textbook violation of federal election coordination laws.

Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system, often touted as a "fair" solution, unfortunately creates fertile ground for such deceptive tactics. Under this system, voters rank candidates by preference. If no candidate secures a majority, the lowest is eliminated, and those ballots shift to the next choice. Crucially, ballots become "inactive" if they rank no remaining candidate or make other errors.

Imagine a patriotic Alaskan voter, intending to support Sen. Sullivan, mistakenly ranks only "Daniel J. Sullivan" instead of "Dan S. Sullivan." The state’s sample ballot even lists "Decoy Dan" first, as "Sullivan, Daniel J. Jr.," with the senator next, as "Sullivan, Dan S." When "Decoy Dan" is inevitably eliminated, that ballot either transfers to a secondary choice or, if none was provided, simply drops out of the count entirely. With "Decoy Dan" capturing 2.5 percent of the primary vote and polls indicating a razor-thin margin, such deliberate confusion could easily tip the scales.

Further exposing the malicious intent, the text messages reviewed by The Times explicitly suggest operatives were *counting* on this exact confusion. Peltola advisors, according to The Times, "seemed to make fun of voters" during a focus group, callously "surmising the participants would be susceptible to being tricked into voting for a ballot spoiler." This is a cynical betrayal of the voter and a deliberate attempt by the left to undermine the democratic process.

Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., a political unknown, initially attempted to appear as "Dan S. Sullivan," the senator’s actual middle initial. He suspiciously registered as a Republican just two days before filing and then launched a campaign website that brazenly mimicked the senator’s established format and color scheme. This was not an innocent mistake; it was a transparent attempt at deception.

Alaska Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher, commendably, recognized the foul play, finding his declaration was "not filed in good faith" and subsequently decertifying his candidacy. However, Alaska’s courts, in a baffling move, allowed him to remain on the ballot without definitively ruling on the intent to mislead voters.

Records confirm "Decoy Dan’s" campaign indeed worked with Anchorage consultant Amber Lee, a known Democrat supporter with a history of working on pro-Peltola super PACs. Lee also holds a director and corporate secretary role on the board of the 907 Initiative, a group with only four voting members, according to corporate records.

Americans for Public Trust alleges that the 907 Initiative astonishingly spent nearly $1.5 million against Sen. Sullivan this cycle through August, including an eye-popping $575,000 in the 90 days before the August primary—mere days after "Decoy Dan" announced his run. Federal Communications Commission records show a single 907 invoice for 119 anti-Sen. Sullivan ads airing June 3-9 for a staggering $112,365.

This financial outlay is profoundly suspicious. The 907 Initiative’s latest tax return covering 2024 reported $793,705 in revenue and only $32,549 in net assets. The alleged spending dramatically exceeds half its annual revenue and surpasses its *entire* 2024 ad spending in under three months. This financial anomaly screams for investigation.

Since The Times’ reporting, much of the public discussion has, again, mistakenly focused on the legality of "ballot-stacking." But the crucial issue, as correctly identified by Americans for Public Trust’s complaint, pertains to alleged principal violations of federal election law – not simply political gamesmanship.

Under federal election rules, an advertisement is considered coordinated when three strict conditions are met: First, someone other than the campaign pays for it. Second, it names a candidate in that candidate’s state within 90 days of an election. Third, specific conduct links the spender to the campaign, such as a request from the campaign, material involvement by the campaign, a shared vendor, or a contractor who worked for the campaign within the preceding 120 days.

The complaint forcefully argues that all three conditions appear to have been met. The 907 Initiative allegedly paid for ads naming Sen. Sullivan within the coordination window. Amber Lee, a paid campaign contractor for "Decoy Dan," sat on 907’s board while the group simultaneously reserved ads against her client’s primary opponent. "Decoy Dan’s" pre-primary FEC report lists $4,380.41 owed to Lee’s firm for "Website Services and Campaign and Digital Consulting." The complaint further details her alleged assistance in his filing and authoring his campaign materials.

A coordinated ad of this nature is classified as an in-kind contribution to the campaign. Given that the 907 Initiative is a corporation, any such contribution would be strictly prohibited, regardless of the amount. Violations aggregating $25,000 or more can cross the felony threshold if they were "knowing and willful."

In response to the complaint, the 907 Initiative predictably claimed "full compliance" and Lee stated she is an "unpaid board member" who does "not manage [907’s] independent expenditure activity." However, whether any violation was "knowing and willful" is the critical distinction between a civil penalty and a potential felony. This standard generally requires proof that a person knew the conduct was unlawful, and such awareness can be shown through circumstantial evidence, including concealment efforts and a person’s professional experience.

Several compelling indicators are present. On June 1, the NRSC sent Lee a written preservation-of-records demand, explicitly warning of potential violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act after her name appeared in the metadata of "Decoy Dan’s" campaign announcement. Her alleged dual roles continued even *after* this explicit warning; she reportedly left the campaign in mid-August but remains on 907’s board. Funny how that always seems to happen in one direction.

The precise timing is also impossible to ignore. "Decoy Dan’s" website domain was registered May 28, the 907 Initiative’s first anti-Sullivan ad aired on the very same day, and the candidate delivered his declaration of candidacy to the Alaska Division of Elections on May 29. Such synchronicity defies innocent explanation.

The sheer scale of the anti-Sullivan advertising is also highly relevant to Lee’s responsibilities as a 907 director and secretary. Directors and officers of a nonprofit corporation owe a fiduciary duty of care, requiring them to stay informed and oversee the organization’s financial decisions. A single broadcast advertisement buy of $112,365 represents more than a third of everything 907 spent on advertising in all of 2024. A director claiming ignorance of spending on that scale would effectively be admitting to a catastrophic lapse in the very oversight their duty of care demands. And somehow, they still expect Americans not to notice.

Lee’s public statement that she does not "manage 907’s spending" is entirely irrelevant to federal coordination rules. Federal law considers an agent "materially involved" if they influence an ad’s content, timing, or placement, or if the spender uses a common vendor or agent who recently worked for the campaign and shares campaign plans. Here, she was a vendor to the "Decoy Dan" campaign and a director and officer of the 907 Initiative. The conflict of interest is blatant.

Each of 907’s communications is evaluated separately under these stringent rules. The question for each ad is whether the payment, content, and conduct standards are met, not whether Lee supervised 907’s overall program or personally signed individual buys. Her statements only confirm her continuing governance role but fail to resolve factual allegations concerning material involvement, the flow of information, or her alleged status as a common agent of both 907 Initiative and the "Decoy Dan" campaign with privileged access to nonpublic information.

It must be stated, for legal clarity, that none of this conclusively "proves" a violation. Only diligent investigators can definitively determine what Lee knew or did, and no one has been charged. This article, while exposing the severe implications, finds no wrongdoing itself.

Alaska Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher deserves immense credit for her proactive efforts to protect Alaska voters from this blatant manipulation. The exposure of the ballot-stacking scheme, while critical, has only illuminated a deeper, more troubling federal question that Americans for Public Trust has courageously brought to light.

Gov. Mike Dunleavy has already ordered a state investigation, correctly noting that the new reporting "substantially supports" the Division of Elections’ initial findings. Federal prosecutors have reportedly issued new subpoenas, indicating the seriousness of the ongoing criminal probe into the Alaska Senate race.

Yet, the most consequential questions remain unaddressed by many: Were the 907 Initiative’s aggressive advertisements attacking Sen. Dan Sullivan illegally coordinated in direct violation of federal election laws? Did other illicit activities occur? Were other shadowy groups involved in this brazen attempt by the radical left to subvert democracy?

Americans for Public Trust has presented compelling evidence that demands immediate and thorough answers. Regardless of any election outcome, Alaskans, and indeed all Americans, deserve full transparency and ironclad accountability for those who seek to undermine our sacred electoral process. Election integrity is the bedrock of our Republic, and these alleged schemes must be met with the full force of the law to safeguard the future of America First.