Alaska Democratic Senate nominee Mary Peltola’s campaign could face demands for records revealing who financed an effort to recruit a second Dan Sullivan to enter the race as the Justice Department seeks discovery in its Alaska election lawsuit — and now accuses her campaign committee and national Democrats of misleading the court about the operation.
The lawsuit, filed by the DOJ over the weekend, seeks to block Alaska from certifying the Senate result if Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) loses and votes cast by confused voters for Dan J. Sullivan could have changed the outcome. The DOJ wants certification paused while investigators determine whether voters who selected the challenger actually intended to support the incumbent.
FILE – Dan J. Sullivan, a candidate in Alaska’s U.S. Senate race who shares a name with the incumbent seeking reelection, talks in front of a welcome sign near downtown Petersburg, Alaska, July 3, 2026. (AP Photo/Becky Bohrer, File)
" data-large-file="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/AP26301649071113.jpg?w=1024" src="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/AP26301649071113.jpg" alt="Dan Sullivan, who shares the same name as the incumbent Republican senator." class="wp-image-4785405" srcset="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/AP26301649071113.jpg 1024w, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/AP26301649071113.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/AP26301649071113.jpg?resize=768,512 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px">
Dan J. Sullivan, a candidate in Alaska’s U.S. Senate race who shares a name with the incumbent seeking reelection, talks in front of a welcome sign near downtown Petersburg, Alaska, July 3, 2026. (AP Photo/Becky Bohrer, File)
An amended complaint filed Thursday night, with Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward as its lead signatory, incorporates the recent New York Times reporting about the Peltola campaign’s plans to support spoiler candidates, with the help of senior Democratic Party aides. The financial trail behind the plan could prove consequential as the DOJ presses for evidence from organizations that initially entered the case seeking its dismissal.
The filing cites the New York Times’s account of a March dinner between Peltola campaign employees and political consultant Jim Lottsfeldt, who works with super PACs aligned with Peltola. According to that account, Lottsfeldt agreed to lead an outside spending effort supporting long-shot Senate candidates.
The spoiler scheme puts specific questions about payments, coordination, and disclosure at the heart of a new DOJ push for discovery.
“I’ll be watching for potential campaign finance violations,” Derek Muller, a University of Notre Dame law professor, told the Washington Examiner on Thursday, before the DOJ filed its amended complaint. “It’s not clear where the money came from and how it flowed. Further investigation will help determine if the money was concealed lawfully or not.”
Experts say legal exposure could involve campaign finances
The potential financial exposure turns on how the alleged operation worked. Who paid operatives, what services they provided, and how committees reported the spending will be key questions.
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani identified financing as a more concrete avenue than prosecuting the recruitment operation itself.
“Running … with the same name obviously isn’t a crime,” Rahmani told the Washington Examiner. “And frankly, even recruiting someone to run with the same name is not a crime.”
However, certain coordinated expenditures can qualify as in-kind contributions, bringing campaign contribution limits and disclosure requirements into play. Rahmani said investigators could examine whether spending associated with Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.’s candidacy constituted contributions benefiting Peltola.
That requires tracing particular transactions and communications. For coordinated communications, the Federal Election Commission examines payment, content, and conduct.
DOJ turns the Peltola campaign’s pleading against itself
The DOJ’s amended complaint, filed by Woodward on Thursday, sharpens the DOJ’s justification for questioning the campaign’s account.
Alaskans for Mary, Peltola’s campaign committee, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee claimed in their sworn statements, which they filed before the news of their involvement in recruiting the second Dan Sullivan broke, that they lacked sufficient information to assess Sullivan’s motives for challenging Republican incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan.
In this photo shot with a smart phone, Democrat Mary Peltola smiles ahead of a debate with Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan in Alaska’s Senate race, Thursday, Oct. 15, 2026, in Anchorage, Alaska. (AP Photo/Becky Bohrer)
" data-large-file="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/AP26289135746298_0daf2f.jpg?w=1024" src="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/AP26289135746298_0daf2f.jpg?w=1024" alt="Mary Peltola." class="wp-image-4785404" srcset="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/AP26289135746298_0daf2f.jpg 1024w, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...10/AP26289135746298_0daf2f.jpg?resize=300,225 300w, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...10/AP26289135746298_0daf2f.jpg?resize=768,576 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px">
In this photo shot with a smartphone, Democrat Mary Peltola smiles ahead of a debate with Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan in Alaska’s Senate race, Thursday, Oct. 15, 2026, in Anchorage, Alaska. (AP Photo/Becky Bohrer)
“Proposed Intervenors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegation concerning the purposes of Daniel J. Sullivan’s candidacy and therefore deny any allegation about those purposes,” they wrote.
The DOJ argues the New York Times reporting contradicts that representation.
The organizations “were well aware” of Sullivan’s purposes, the department alleges, because “they orchestrated his sham campaign for the purpose of misleading Alaskan voters and getting Peltola elected.”
The DOJ initially asked the court to block Peltola’s campaign and the DSCC from becoming parties to the case. However, after the New York Times story was published, DOJ lawyers filed a motion reversing course and asking the court to allow them to join. Doing so could open the door to broader discovery.
Can the lawsuit produce the records?
Alaskans for Mary and the DSCC sought to intervene to argue for dismissal. The DOJ initially opposed their participation, then reversed course Wednesday within hours of the story breaking and announced plans to seek expedited discovery in a Wednesday evening court filing. U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, subsequently allowed them to intervene.
The Peltola campaign’s effort to end the case could ultimately result in the court compelling it to hand over communications and financial records about the operation.
The amended complaint supports the DOJ’s demand for scrutiny with reported communications about the recruitment of the second Dan Sullivan, including details about how the Democratic operatives involved tried to conceal their activies.
The immediate hurdle for the DOJ is persuading Gleason to authorize relevant discovery before resolving challenges to the lawsuit.
The DOJ’s two counts seek relief against Alaska officials under the National Voter Registration Act and a supremacy clause theory concerning certification. Financial evidence would have to fit within the permissible scope of that litigation.
But the DOJ is running out of time. Its flurry of filings came just days before voting ends and ballots are counted in Alaska, after which the remedies for the DOJ become less clear.
Elias firm’s role draws scrutiny
The filing identifies Elias Law Group as both a firm referenced in the reporting and counsel representing Alaskans for Mary and the DSCC. Peltola’s campaign has paid the firm roughly $150,000, according to FEC records.
Elias Law Group’s alleged involvement extended to discussions about creating a “MAGA party” to draw conservative support away from the incumbent, according to the New York Times investigation. That plan never came to fruition.
Democracy Docket, founded by ELG Chairman and former Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Marc Elias, is already framing the lawsuit as a threat extending beyond the limited relief the government is seeking, which is permission to temporarily delay certification of the results. In a Wednesday analysis, the outlet argued that the DOJ could build a record of alleged voter confusion for a subsequent fight over seating the winner, even if its certification challenge fails.
Legal commentator and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley warned Thursday, before the newest filings, that lawyers involved in the underlying events could become witnesses or investigative targets.
“They should immediately remove themselves or risk serious possible ramifications,” Turley wrote on X.
“Not only are they potential witnesses or targets, but continued involvement could be viewed as relevant to alleged further violations,” he added.
Separate investigations widen the stakes
Meanwhile, ABC News reported Thursday that federal prosecutors had begun issuing a wave of grand jury subpoenas targeting Democratic officials believed to be connected to recruiting the second Dan Sullivan.
Gov. Mike Dunleavy (R-AK) also directed Alaska’s Department of Public Safety to investigate whether “criminal charges or civil action are warranted.” The DOJ incorporated that order into its amended complaint.
Those potential criminal investigations provide routes separate from the civil lawsuit to examine payments and communications, even if Gleason declines to greenlight the DOJ’s request to block certification results in the event of a narrow Peltola victory.
Peltola’s campaign has vehemently denied involvement with either Sullivan campaign, according to a statement to the Washington Examiner on Wednesday.
NATIONAL DEMOCRATS LEAVE MARY PELTOLA TO FEND FOR HERSELF AMID ALASKA SENATE SCANDAL
Election law scholar Rick Hasen argued in an election blog post before the new DOJ filings in the civil case that the recruitment revelations did not resolve the DOJ’s certification problems. Even assuming the DOJ could sue over voter confusion, he wrote, “it is irrelevant as to why voters might face confusion over the two Dan Sullivans.”
The financial questions could endure beyond the certification dispute. For now, Gleason must decide whether the DOJ’s discovery effort can proceed — potentially requiring the organizations that sought dismissal to produce records showing who organized the operation, who financed it, and how the money was reported.
Continue reading...
[ H/T Washington Examiner ]
