Opinion: How a $100K campaign donation complicated the future of AI and Alaska - Anchorage Daily News

I got to know Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, or JKT, about seven years ago as a student at the Outer Coast Summer Seminar in Sitka — a program he spent years developing around the idea that people should have a voice and help shape the rules of their communities. At Outer Coast, students established the rules they lived by and were taught to serve and care for the community and land rather than just passing through. I learned that these principles were not just an educational philosophy, but a moral and governing one, too.

That is precisely what makes it so surprising to see the same guy boating 450 miles down the Yukon River in one of the poorest areas of the country, seemingly engaging with and serving the communities he visited, while, at the same time, six employees of the same AI giant write the biggest checks of his political career.

JKT has raised $1.85 million in his campaign for governor, more than any other candidate. Nearly one-fifth of those funds came from just six people employed by Anthropic.

[Related coverage: Democrat in Alaska’s governor race reports $1.8 million fundraising haul, driven by Californians]

In all fairness, JKT’s policy isn’t anti-regulation. It calls for a moratorium on new data centers until the Legislature passes comprehensive regulations and for AI companies to be held liable in Alaska courts for harm.

So why did these AI researchers and executives spend $372,000 on a candidate who advocates for an immediate statewide pause on the very infrastructure their industry depends on?

A moratorium framed as lasting “until the Legislature has passed comprehensive regulation” creates a moment when those who have the most to lose from AI regulation will have a strong opportunity to shape it. If those who are writing the checks are also present when the details of the regulation are discussed, then Alaskans have no real means of knowing whose interests the regulation will serve.

So what interest, exactly, does the regulation stand to serve? For Anthropic, automating both mental and, eventually, physical work — the kind I learned to value — is its main goal. Anthropic’s CEO has said more than once that the company’s technology could make half of all entry-level white-collar jobs disappear in a few years.

JKT helped build Outer Coast on the idea that those affected by a decision should have a say in making it. Having six people from California write the biggest checks in Alaska’s gubernatorial race is the opposite of that principle.

Think about how we would describe this situation if the company in question were ConocoPhillips rather than Anthropic. Imagine six employees from ConocoPhillips or Glenfarne writing checks for $372,000 this spring while the Legislature was in special session considering whether to largely eliminate property taxes on Glenfarne’s North Slope gas pipeline. It wouldn’t be regarded as networking.

Drake Thomas, the largest donor to JKT, offered his own explanation for his donation. Mr. Thomas says he is truly concerned about how rapidly his own industry is advancing, and I believe him. He’s a member of Anthropic’s safety team and is worried about the safety of his employer’s products.

I, too, share these concerns, but that’s not the point.

He argues that it is unfair for his donation to get so much attention, especially since other candidates have received even larger contributions without as much scrutiny. However, these donors aren’t associated with a company facing major regulatory issues before the next governor.

This is the distinction. The concern is not just the size of any one contribution, but that six individuals from the same company and industry are backing a single campaign at a time when Alaska is beginning to set the rules that will shape their sector’s future.

I never doubted that his fear was real. Still, being afraid of your own industry and having no conflict of interest are two different things, and only one is at issue here.

Someone can want the right regulations and still get a call most Alaskans never would — because $100,000 buys access, whether or not it brings influence.

So, here’s what I’d ask JKT directly: What was discussed when Mr. Thomas and his colleagues wrote those checks? When JKT says he’ll hold AI companies responsible for “harm,” does that include things like damage to rural power grids, the state budget or the way of life of a village? And will he now, before a single vote has been counted, promise to disclose every meeting he has with a tech industry donor if he becomes governor?

Money shouldn’t set the terms of a service before the state even gets to talk about it. In Sitka, JKT built something real that helped people see the value of the work and services our communities provide. I hope he does the same with his campaign before the details are written by people who won’t have to live with the results.

Isaac Aparezuk Schlosser is a 23-year-old Yup’ik Alaskan who was born and raised in Juneau. He works for the state of Alaska.

The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.