Seventeen candidates are running to be Alaska’s next governor. Alaskans are already heading to the polls for early voting in the Aug. 18 nonpartisan, pick-one primary, which will narrow the field to four.
It can be tough to pick a favorite in a crowded field, so as the primary nears, Alaska Public Media is conducting interviews with some of the top candidates in the race. We reached out to every campaign that's raised $50,000 or more as of the mid-July deadline to report fundraising, and nearly all responded.
Today, we’ll hear from Republican Bernadette Wilson, a conservative activist and the owner of Denali Disposal, a garbage-hauling business based in Anchorage.
This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity..
You have spent a long time in the world of politics, including stints as a radio host, you’ve been with conservative groups like Americans for Prosperity, the Alaska Policy Forum and been involved in campaigns. You're also a mom and a business owner, but this is your first campaign for public office. So my question to you is, why did you decide to run for governor? Why is now the moment for Bernadette Wilson?
You know, I was having a question with my oldest one when he graduated high school a few years ago, and we were talking about the fact that he had made the decision to go straight to the workforce. He wasn't going to go to college. And as we started to have this conversation, we started talking about the economies in other states, and what the price of housing looked like in one state, and what the cost of energy was in another, and the opportunities in another.
And as we started talking about the economies of these other states, I mentioned to him, I said, “You know, if I were 18 years old again, I would not stay in Alaska. I would not set up roots here. I wouldn't start a business here. I wouldn't raise my family here. I sure as heck wouldn't put my kids into the school system here. I would get out. I would go set up roots somewhere else.”
And as I laid in bed that night, what kind of flashed through my mind was the fact that my grandmother was born in the village of Naknek. I'm a member of the Naknek tribe, so I hail of Aleut descent. My great-uncle was Gov. Wally Hickel, who served as governor twice. I come from a long line of family businesses that have been in Alaska for decades. My dad has a family business that celebrated 50 years in business in March 2025. My mom and my bonus dad have a dirt company that's been in Alaska more than 40 years. I myself have a business that's been here more than a decade. And the thought of my kids leaving, the thought of my grandkids being raised somewhere else, was heartbreaking.
But I was also incredibly angry in that moment because, as you mentioned, Eric, I have been involved in politics in a supportive role. I've given time, talent, treasure to try to help get individuals elected, only to find myself frustrated that they are suddenly more concerned about keeping that job than doing that job. And when that heartbreak met that frustration, and I found myself after giving all of that time, talent and treasure to help get people elected, and now I was the one staring into the eyes of my own 18-year-old son, telling him, “You should get out. The state has been sitting stagnant for decades.” That was when I made the decision. It's time to get into this and steer Alaska a better direction.
You're running to replace the governor from your own party, and to my ear, he shares many of your views. I'm curious to draw some distinctions here. What did Gov. Mike Dunleavy get right, and what did he get wrong during his eight years in office?
You know what? I'm not running against Mike Dunleavy. It's time for us to look forward, not backwards. That's part of the problem that the state of Alaska continually has, is we constantly want to look back, and we sit stagnant in one place.
Here's the deal: I share many values with the governor. I absolutely do. I admire his determination to get a gas line to go through. I think that is awesome. Our personalities are very different. Our backgrounds are very different. I've signed the front of a paycheck. I've lived the ups and downs. I am a little bit more spicy. When you come in and you're used to battling it out, you just have a little bit of a different background there. So I think what Alaskans will see is a very strong difference in personality and in approach.
I want to talk about education, one of the top issues for voters in the election. When we talked last May, you said you wanted to support a funding increase that makes Alaska the No. 1 school system in the country. You didn't say exactly what that would be, and you said you were going to basically ask school district leaders for their sense of what would make Alaska No. 1 in the country.
So I'm curious, 15 months in, do you have a sense of what funding level would make Alaska No. 1, and what other changes you would want to make to Alaska's education system to improve it?
Just to be clear, the question that I have asked and what I have pointed out is the fact that no one can tell me what that number is.
When it comes to education, I am incredibly frustrated by the fact that we have this debate over how much more money do we need. $1,800 is what some people were supporting to the base student allocation. Some were supporting $680 to the base student allocation. But no one can tell me, what do we get for that amount of money as far as results go? And that's important. It's results that I'm talking about.
Now, people can come to me and say, well, for $1,800 or $680, we will open up X amount of more schools. We will reduce our class size by X amount of students, or whatever it is. They can give you any other metric. The question that I want to know, Eric, for that amount of money, what will we get for results? Are we going to be the top 100 in the country? Is it going to increase our results by 20%? What are we getting for results? We come in 48th, 49th and 51st in fourth and eighth grade reading and math. We cannot keep taking an arbitrary number. It is as arbitrary as Dr. (Anthony) Fauci's 6-foot distancing rule. Nobody can tell me where it came from. It's as though it got pulled out of thin air.
I want to know, what are we getting for that number? And I would love — I would absolutely love — I want the (National Education Association), the teachers union, to come tell me this is how much money will put us in the top 10 districts in the country. This is how much it's going to take to give us a 90% proficiency in math. I keep getting and hearing arbitrary numbers with no results behind them. That's a tragedy for our kids, and to keep having this conversation over money, money, money with no accountability attached to it is ridiculous.
The conversation we need to be having is this: We need to end the discrimination and income inequality that is going on in education. That's just the reality of it. Our kids who are not proficient in reading and math, we see strong statistical ties to the income level of that family. We are currently taking kids, and we are shoving them into a one-size-fits-all system, and we're telling them you have to go to that school because that's the school you're zoned for, because that's where your family can afford to live.
During COVID, the kids that struggled, those were the low-income kids. The upper-income kids — and I use that term lightly, there are a lot of families that make sacrifices so that their children can have other educational opportunities — but those upper-income kids, so to speak, those families have the opportunity to hire a private tutor, to put their child into a homeschool co-op. If the public school isn't working, they pull them out, they put them into a private school where they know that they're not going to get bullied, or they feel like the teacher is going to be a better fit for them. Whatever the reason is that motivates families to pick from any of these other options. Meanwhile, when it comes to public education, we continue to discriminate against low-income families, and that needs to end.
Tell me about how you would accomplish that.
There are several different ways. I think that the first thing is we need to look at, we've seen legislation across the country called No More Lines. I don't know, are you familiar with that at all?
You know, that particular one, I am not.
OK, so what No More Lines essentially says is that children within the public school system can now go to any of the public schools that are in that area. It doesn't necessarily have to be that particular school that they're at. So I think that that would be a great option to go in the right direction. We've seen success with legislation like that. We've seen bipartisan support. That's one piece of legislation that I think would be great in that direction. But we've got to figure out how we can start opening this up for these kids to have other opportunities and not get shoehorned into this one-size-fits-all system.
One solution that I've heard to what you're describing as the income inequality problem is basically allowing money to follow the child, and in Alaska's case, basically allowing folks to use homeschool correspondence allotments for private school tuition. Do you see that as one of the things that would help alleviate this income inequality?
Well, as I said, I think No More Lines helps with that. I most certainly think that having students that have the option, giving parents the means to put them into other educational opportunities, absolutely would help. There's no doubt about that. We've got to figure out how we can come up with a vehicle that will allow those kids to have the same opportunities as upper-income children.
Would you look to pass a constitutional amendment that allows that explicitly?
That constitutional amendment would be such a far stretch, Eric. You know that as well as I do. So let's talk about what we can actually get accomplished.
No More Lines would be a great step in the right direction. I'm interested in what we can get done quickly so that we can get results. These kids are 48th, 49th and 51st in fourth and eighth grade reading and math. Let's talk about what is immediately tangible.
When I hear you talk about No More Lines, I think about districts across the state that already allow folks to enroll in basically any school in the district that they would like. I want to say Anchorage is one of those, although I don't know that for a fact.
I'm curious, are there school districts where you're seeing this model work? And what would actually change in the education system in Alaska if we instituted this No More Lines policy? Would folks from, say, the Mat-Su be able to enroll in Anchorage schools and the other way around? Is that one of the things you're talking about?
There's multiple ways that they've worked this legislation. You mentioned the Anchorage School District. Right now in Anchorage, a family has to apply for a particular waiver if the child does not want to have to go to that school. So you have to apply for the waiver. Sometimes they get approved. Sometimes they don't.
You will remember, perhaps a couple years ago, we had a young girl, I believe she was in junior high, that was being severely bullied, and the mother had requested that she go to a different school. There was a little bit of controversy there, trying to get the child out. That child ended up, I'm sure as you recall, getting abused quite badly one day at school, getting jumped. In fact, it was a big deal. The community kind of rallied behind her.
So I would say what we need to do is open it up so that we make it easier for those parents to say, you know what, it's not just automatic that you are going to go into this school automatically, and then we're going to make you go through these 10 extra steps if you want to choose a different school. It should be the other way around. Those kids should be able to start out the year by saying, you know what, this is the school that I would like to go to. This is the one that I think is going to fit me the best, and not the other way around.
I have one more question on education, and basically it's how would you tie student performance to school funding? Would better-performing districts get more money? How would you accomplish paying for results, as you say?
What do you mean paying for results? Who said anything about paying for results?
Well, what I'm getting at is, you were saying, what are we getting for an education funding increase? The way you framed it was, when I go to the NEA or school district administrators, they can't tell me how much money would actually fix the problem of Alaska schools being near the bottom of the barrel.
And what I'm trying to get at is how would you fix that problem? How would you make it so that funding is tied to better results? You could have incentives for reaching certain test score thresholds — I mean, there are various policy mechanisms you can do to do that, and I'm just sort of curious how you envision turning that priority into policy.
No, no, no, no. Just to be very clear, I don't think that you're going to take any amount of money and now say, well, we're going to give you this amount of money, and now you're going to produce X amount of results, or you're going to incentivize results. I would assume, Eric, that if you have teachers and districts that know how to get results, they are going to get those results whether you bribe them with any amount of money or not.
So we're not talking about money. We're talking about programs that we know work. And when we see programs that work, how do we implement more of those programs? How can we do more of them? If you've got, for example, King Tech High School, where we know that the kids are going into that school, they're coming out of high school with basic skills in labor and hairdressing, things like this. How can we look at schools like that, and how can we do more of them? If we have schools that have great phonics programs, for example, how can we do more of those programs? It's about how do we get results by the programs that we are offering?
You are convoluting the two things that I'm saying. What I'm saying is, if you're going to come to me and ask for an increase in the base student allocation, tell me for the amount of money that you are asking, what do you anticipate we will get for results? That's a question for the education experts, don't you think?
I appreciate that clarification. That makes it make a lot more sense.
Absolutely.
So I want to move on. You've talked about the Permanent Fund dividend quite a bit in your campaign, and you've made paying a statutory PFD a key plank in your platform. It would have been close to $4,000 per Alaskan this year.
My question to you is, should Alaskans expect a statutory PFD in the first year of a Wilson administration? And if so, where would you get the money to pay for it?
So the first thing is, I do believe that the governor has an obligation to push for a statutory Permanent Fund dividend. The second thing is, you asked the question, where do you get the money? I think that the money comes from the exact same Permanent Fund that we've been paying it out of.
The thing that is this, Eric. This is what several people fail to remember. There is a formula in place. You were never guaranteed a $3,800 Permanent Fund dividend. You were never guaranteed a $1,000 Permanent Fund dividend. If you follow the formula, if the money isn't there, like so many people say, if the money is not there, then you will end up paying out a $25 Permanent Fund dividend, or you'll end up paying out a $50 dividend, or whatever the amount is.
The reality is the money is there. That's why legislators don't want to follow the formula, because they want to take that money and they want to use it as a slush fund somewhere else. If the money isn't there, this is very simple. If the money isn't there, then follow the formula and pay out a $5 dividend, then. The money is there. The same legislators who tell you that we cannot afford to pay out a Permanent Fund dividend have not met a spending package they don't like. Those same legislators are the same ones that threw a $7.1 billion piece of legislation on the governor's desk.
So the idea that the Permanent Fund doesn't have the money, we can combat on those two things. The first thing being that legislators haven't met a spending package they don't like. The second thing being that if the money isn't there, then follow the formula and pay out a smaller Permanent Fund dividend. Do you know why the Permanent Fund dividend would have been $3,800 this year? Because the money was there. That's why. But legislators decided that they wanted to use it somewhere else.
But here's the other thing, Eric, and you are darn right, I'm going to fight like hell for that Permanent Fund dividend. And here's why. Because at the end of the day, it has nothing to do with the amount of a check. Now, legislators, liberal reporters all over Alaska have wanted to make it about a check. It has nothing to do with the amount of a check. It has everything to do with the fact that Alaskans own the rights to those resources. And when you concede on that Permanent Fund dividend, you're not just conceding on the amount of a check. You are conceding on the very idea that Alaskans no longer own those resources. And as your governor, I'm sorry, but I'm going to fight like hell to make sure that Alaskans own the rights to those resources. I believe that the individual knows better how to spend that money, not government. And if for no other reason than those reasons right there, your mineral rights in Alaska do not fluctuate based off of the spending habits of the Legislature. It has nothing to do with the amount of a check. So you're darn right, I'm going to fight like crazy for that Permanent Fund dividend.
So you say the money is there. The fund does make money. The formula is based on, I believe, statutory net income of the fund, and that is a particular formula in state law. And you're right that the money is there. It's in the Permanent Fund.
But the Legislature in 2018 decided that the maximum draw to pay for dividends and for all of government should be 5% of the total value of the fund, and paying a statutory dividend would consume the vast majority of that transfer, leaving very little to run government. So that's sort of where I'm coming from when I ask, where does the money come from to pay it?
So the money is there. You just acknowledged that, correct?
That's right. There is money there, but it's the job of the governor and the Legislature to figure out how to spend it. And I'm asking basically how would you decide to pay that dividend, and from what account?
That money is there, and we need to follow the same formula that we have been following, because you're absolutely correct. It is there, and it's not up to legislators to arbitrarily decide that Alaskans may or may not own a certain amount of their mineral rights this year, and maybe next year we'll give them a little bit more. But maybe next year they won't own as much. No, no, no. Alaskans own the rights to those resources. Period.
You also talked about cutting spending on state agencies. Can you talk about — you've talked about reducing the size of government generally. Can you talk about what you would like to reduce in the government?
I haven't said anything about cutting spending. What I have said is we need to go in and we need to audit for efficiencies, and we need to DOGE where we have fat. So we need to get in there and we need to do a deep dive into government spending.
I'll give you an example. The Department of Health last year spent money sponsoring an LGBT doula class. Did you know that?
I did not.
So they spent money sponsoring an LGBT doula class. That same Department of Health turned around not much longer after that and sponsored a suicide prevention awareness symposium at the Egan Center in Anchorage, where they had a self-proclaimed bearded drag queen talking to kids as young as 13. We have hundreds of fully funded unfilled positions within Alaska.
I bring those things up to you because the point is this: We need to go in and we need to audit so that we know where that fat is at. We need to bring in a team that can come in and say, OK, let's comb through and let's see, where are we spending money? Where do we have fully funded unfilled positions that have been unfilled for more than five years? How many are there? Where can we find efficiencies? So that's definitely a deep dive conversation that we need to have.
Now, if you are expecting anybody to say, well, we need to go into this department, we need to cut X amount of money — that's irresponsible and that's absolutely ridiculous. You need a governor that's going to come in and say no, we're going to audit, and we're going to look to see where that is at. That's the conversation that we need to have.
Do you have a sense of how much money that could save?
You know, the governor had an individual who he had hired at one point that gave him an idea as to how much money that is. I've seen people estimate that there's billions of dollars there. We need to get in and we need to look at what actually that is.
What I can tell you is this: When you have people say that Alaska's flat broke, we can't pay out a Permanent Fund dividend, but then they turn around and put a $7.1 billion spending bill on the governor's desk. When you find out the Department of Health is sponsoring an LGBT doula class. When you find out that we have hundreds of fully funded unfilled positions, surely you and I can agree that clearly we need to come in and we need to do an audit so we can figure out how much money that is. Right? I don't think that anybody knows that right now.
I want to turn to working with the Legislature. Since the Legislature has the power of the purse, I'm curious how you would go about getting your agenda through the Legislature.
Yeah, so there are several components there. In fact, I gave an hourlong discussion on this just the other day. But there's a few things there.
The first thing is this: I believe it takes good communication from your governor to your Legislature. I was shocked a couple years back, a year or so back, perhaps, it was five days before session began, and I sat down on the plane next to a particular state senator who was in leadership, and I made the comment flying from Juneau to Anchorage. I said, “Well, senator, what are we working on this session?” And the senator says to me, “Well, Bernadette, when you figure it out, let me know.”
I had several legislators who reached out to me during the conversation regarding the base student allocation who were very frustrated. They felt like that goal line was constantly being moved on them. They did not know what was expected of them.
Your governor needs to communicate with your legislators very clearly on, this is the vision, these are the goals, and this is the anticipated timeline.
The second component to that is communication with the electorate, and this is very, very important, because it's not, how does the governor go get something through the Legislature? It's, how does Alaska get something through this Legislature? That's really what you're asking. The governor is the figurehead on behalf of all of this state, on behalf of all Alaskans. So the question is, how do we get the Legislature to work with all of Alaskans?
One way that I think the governor can aid that is not just with communication with legislators, but communication directly with the electorate. I'll give you a couple very specific examples. The first is this: We used to give a state of the budget address here in Alaska. Your governor used to. We haven't done a state of the budget address, and I don't even know how long. It's been quite a long time. The governor needs to give a state of the budget address. This idea that we take the budget and we slip it under the door in the dead of the night to legislators as that's kind of an analogy, so to speak, and then we're not having communication directly with the public. What it's doing is it's allowing the conversation to get, I would argue, very muddled, very mucky, and Alaskans are getting jerked around between their governor and their legislators. So I think that the governor needs to have communication directly with the people. A state of the budget address would help with that.
The other thing is I believe that the governor ought to be taking cabinet meeting. And quarterly, I think that we should be airing those cabinet meetings for the public to see. I think that we should sit down with every commissioner, and I don't care if it's just one Alaskan that watches. I think we need to sit down with our commissioners and say, OK, what are you working on today? What are the roadblocks? What's the update on the projects that we had four months ago, three months ago? However often. Like I said, I think that we need to do them at least quarterly. Just to be clear, Eric, it's not that you're only having cabinet meetings quarterly. You're having regular cabinet meetings. It's that quarterly you would air them publicly. So there's things like that that we need to do.
But the other thing is this: I hear all the time across Alaska, people very frustrated that they don't have a gas line. People very frustrated about the fact that they're not being paid a statutory Permanent Fund dividend, and yet so many people are unclear of how their legislator voted specifically.
So on the one hand, you have legislators acting as a roadblock. Some of them — not all of them, just to be very specific, not all of them. Some of them appear to be hellbent on watching Alaska fail. They are hellbent on that. I don't know why, you'd have to ask them that question. But the reality is, they will go to the governor, they will act as a roadblock, and they will say, well, this is what my district wants. I'm doing what my district wants. This is what Alaska wants me to do. Interestingly enough, when you go into those districts, they don't know who's responsible. So when I talk about communication, I also think that the governor needs to be communicating in and with those districts very specifically.
Now, one thing that I think the governor could do is set up a sort of independent expenditure. That's not public dollars, by the way. That's private dollars. So that the governor has the means, the financial means, and the ability to go into those districts — whether that's with radio ads or mail or town halls, whatever it might be — to say, hey, here's what's going on. This is the conversation we're having. What do you think of this? How do you think your legislator would vote? And I think that we need to help bring Alaskans into this conversation and inspire legislators to want to work with their governor. And I think having that independent expenditure could help inspire that collaboration that we've been missing for so long here in Alaska.
So you're talking about basically a nongovernment group that more or less runs attack ads against legislators?
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Eric, Eric, stop. Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that. That's not at all what I said. What I said is that we can go into districts and we can have conversations about legislation that is going on, to gauge where the people are at. Who says that's an attack ad? Nobody said that.
Well, you talked about radio ads, and I was sort of curious for more details on what you were proposing there.
Oh, you can run — you've never heard — have the only radio ads you've ever heard been attack ads. Dude, you’ve got to look at some of the stuff we're doing, man. No, we can do a lot of positive things with radio ads. We can do a lot of positive things with mail. We can absolutely encourage, hey, this is an awesome piece of legislation. This is what we're looking at. These are the benefits that it would bring to Alaska. Here's the conversation that we're having with your legislator. That's not an attack at all.
Understood. I also want to talk about resource development, and specifically the Alaska LNG project. As you're aware, and as you talked about earlier, there's sort of a stalemate between the governor and members of the Legislature in trying to get a tax deal for the Alaska LNG project to make the economic case for it better.
And I'm curious, if you were sitting in the governor's office right now, how you would get this through. Can you sort of operationalize the approach that you were describing earlier?
Yeah. So I would not have — I think one difference between the governor's approach and — you know, it's always easy to play Monday morning quarterback. So take this comment for whatever it's worth, right? It's very easy to find criticism when you're not the one that's staying up in the middle of the night making the decision.
From the outside looking in, if I were the governor, I think that I would have done things a little bit differently at the end of session. I think that what I would have done at the end of session is I would have set up town halls across Alaska regarding a gas line. I would have been writing op-eds to the newspaper as the governor. I would have been jumping on to do radio interviews, things just like this. And I would have gone into those districts of key legislators and said, “Hey, let's have a town hall with your constituents. Let's talk about this.” I would have spent a solid month or two talking with Alaskans about the benefits to that gas line long before I ever called legislators back to session. I would have taken that tactic first, before I turned around and just immediately called them back into special session.
One thing I've also been curious about in that vein is the role for compromise that you see in getting a political initiative or getting legislation through.
Ask me that again.
Basically, what do you see as the role of compromise in getting your priorities through the Legislature, or allowing the Legislature's priorities? That's my question: what do you see as the role of compromise in the political process?
Well, I think that that's specific to whatever particular bill or piece of legislation it is that we're talking about at that moment.
Now, what I will say is this: We have been told for decades that we need to compromise with each other. We need to work across party lines. Go have another cup of coffee or a cocktail together. My question for Alaskans is, they've been feeding us that for decades. Are you any better off than you were 10, 20 or 30 years ago?
We've tried it that way. We're 48th, 49th and 51st in fourth and eighth grade reading and math. We haven't built a major road in 40 years. I sit up on the stage at gubernatorial forums, and we're talking about the same stalled projects, the same problems that we've been talking about for decades. We have a drug and psychiatric problem that's taken over our streets like crazy. So that depends on specifically what legislation you're talking about.
But there's been this idea, well, you’ve got to compromise. Now I think that what might be beneficial is a reflection on past history.
When I go across Alaska, people tell me all the time, you know, Bernadette, your great-uncle Wally, he was one of the greatest visionaries Alaska ever had. Most people tell you Gov. Hickel was one of Alaska's great governors. Many people will reflect back on (Jay) Hammond. They'll reflect back on (Bill) Egan. Some of Alaska's governors that we look back to and are quoted frequently, regardless of how any one of us individually may feel about them. Gov. Hickel, they threatened to launch a recall against him. Hammond vetoed 70 bills from his Legislature while he was governor. 70. Way more than Dunleavy ever has. 70.
So it's interesting that as Alaskans look back, what history shows us is that our most successful governors, the ones that we look back on fondly, had a record of standing up and fighting for Alaskans, and they did. They pushed back hard. I think that it's time for us to say, OK, maybe we've taken this idea of coffee and cocktails a little bit too far.
And that's not to say that you don't sit down and have a nice chat with people. Not at all. It's not to say that you don't compromise with them. But what I'm saying is we've tried it that way for decades. I think it's time for the governor to come in with a little bit of a heavier hand. The governor needs to work directly with Alaskans, and the Legislature needs to remember you work for Alaska. The governor is here to back up Alaskans. That's who we're here to back up for, and ultimately that's who they work for. That's who signs the front of their paychecks. It's voters all over the state that sign those legislators' paycheck every day. It's not the other way around, and it's time for us to have that mental shift in this state.
I want to ask about your fundraising. You've done a remarkable job fundraising, I think more than $900,000. About three-quarters of your donors are out of state. By dollar amount, that's about 60% of your dollars came from out of state. And one thing that has really stood out to me is a lot of your small-dollar donations — I think more than 90% of them are from addresses outside Alaska.
So I guess I'm curious, tell me about your approach to fundraising and why you selected it.
You know, we have had so many donors, Eric, so many of them, that even if you take the out-of-state ones out, our local donors still blow people out of the water. So let's talk our in-state donors. We've got more in-state donors than I think anybody. And I haven't looked at this last report, but I'm very proud of the fact that we have more Alaskans supporting this campaign than any other campaign that's out there. This is very, very encouraging. I'm very excited about that.
The other thing that I'll say about that is this: I'm also very proud of the fact that while you have Democrats like (Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins) that are raising millions of dollars from Outside people who want to shut Alaska down, I'm very proud of the fact that we have been able, on a national level, to sit down and talk to people who have interests in Alaska. They've got interests in mining. They've got interests in oil. Maybe they aren't registered to vote here, but they've got investment properties here. Any number of things.
I am very proud of the fact that here on the Republican side, we have been able to show that for the first time in a long time, we will indeed build up the machine and compete with the Democrats, who have on the national level constantly slaughtered us on that front. And so what we're seeing is, for the first time, we've got a strong conservative campaign where we have rallied conservatives all over. You know, Eric, we talk all the time about how critical Alaska is to the rest of the country, right? We talk about the federal dollars that we want when it comes to our military and to our national defense, because we know we're critical to the rest of the country. We talk about the oil and gas and the minerals and the resources that we have to offer to the rest of the country. And so I am darn glad that we finally have the rest of the country on board, recognizing how important Alaska is.
I want to move on to just a few more things. You've mentioned Gov. Wally Hickel a couple times, and I want to ask about this. The sons of former Gov. Wally Hickel, in a letter to news organizations, objected to you leaning on your connection to him. They said that there's no connection between your ideology and his, and said that your use of his legacy is, quote, misleading and disrespectful. I'm curious for what you would say to them in response.
You know, here's the issue. I frequently talk about multiple previous governors. I've talked about Hammond frequently. In fact, I think I just brought Hammond up earlier in this interview, if I do recall correctly.
You did.
Here's the thing: Alaska's history belongs to all of us. That does not belong to any particular family. It doesn't belong to any particular campaign or any particular candidate. That legacy in Alaska belongs to the state and to all of us. And not only does it belong to us, but it's incredibly important that we study history, and so many times we lose sight of that. But it's important to study history to know where we have been, to be able to go back and to say, well, wait a minute, one of our most successful governors, he vetoed 70 bills from his Legislature. Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way. There's a lot of wisdom that can be gained from studying history, and it can shed a light on how Alaska moves forward. That's very, very important for people.
And so I encourage Alaskans, remember that it belongs to you. I've got some favorite Wally Hickel quotes. In fact, if you haven't checked out our social media, I would encourage everybody, check out our social media. Bernadette for Governor on Facebook. Bernadette for Governor on YouTube. I did a video about this, reading some of my favorite Wally Hickel quotes. In fact, some of it where he addressed things like this. But it's very important. I would encourage Alaskans, go back, study your history. Let's lean on the people that have gone ahead of us. Very important.
And I want to give you an opportunity to respond to one other thing, and that is that a fuel supplier sued your company. You didn't respond. A default judgment was entered, and the state ultimately garnished your dividends for two years to collect that judgment.
And given that you've built a lot of your case on having met payroll, signing the front of a paycheck, I'm curious for your perspective on what happened there.
You know, here's the thing with that. I can tell you, Eric, trust me, I can tell you a whole lot of sleepless nights and things. I have battled through saving a business. I'm very proud to still have that business today. Heck, we've lived through cash flow problems. We lived through COVID. When the Anchorage Assembly shut down our business during COVID, we went through a whole nother round of what I would describe as hell. Right? Sleepless nights, that pit in your stomach when you can't sleep.
But you know the thing about those moments, Eric, is when you pull through those, when you know that hardship, you come out with a backbone and with a resilience and with a fighting spirit that cannot be taught in a committee room. You don't learn that in elected office. You look at President Donald Trump — and people have their different views of him, I would argue he's done an incredible job for Alaska — a man who had six businesses that declared bankruptcy. Six. And yet he has delivered for Alaska in a very big way, more than any other president.
And so you look at those situations, and my message to Alaskans is this: I mean, Eric, you talk about the business stuff. I mean, heck, I know the economic pressures of being a single mother. I faced an unplanned pregnancy when I was 19 years old.
My message to Alaskans is this: I know that right now there are so many Alaskans that are worried. Our seniors have health care bills that are piled up on the counter. We've got veterans who aren't sure if they're going to be able to afford their property taxes. We've got single parents that are behind in their rent payment, they're worried about eviction. Are they going to get evicted? Are they going to put food on the table?
My message to all those Alaskans is this: Stay strong. You're going to pull through it. We are going to pull through it. And the thing about it, for each and every single one of you that's listening right now, know this. When you pull through that, you come out stronger, better, more resilient. And the amazing thing is that almighty God gives you that experience, and you can now put it to work for everybody else. So I can tell you this. Those sleepless nights, those business stresses, that teaches you a value and a certain skill set that you can now bring to an office that you can't learn unless you go through hell.
It's very easy to say, well, I got grit, I got determination. You don't know that unless you've actually been pushed so hard, and you know what it's like to stay up all night worrying and sweating it out.
Before we close, I want to ask one more question about the budget, and basically it comes from this. The state has a structural deficit. Part of that is driven by the statutory Permanent Fund dividend formula, the price of oil, the fixed amount that the state can draw from the earnings reserve account of the Permanent Fund. And the state has struggled for years to make revenue meet expenses. The state savings account is fairly low right now. It's at $3 billion — that's the Constitutional Budget Reserve account that lawmakers can draw on with a three-quarters vote.
And I guess I just want to ask, how do you make revenues meet expenses in a way that is sustainable? I mean, without cutting spending, without new taxes, how does the math eventually work?
So are you saying that we have a revenue problem? Is that the premise of your question?
The premise of my question is that revenue does not meet expenses.
OK, so you're saying that we have —
Expenses are greater than revenue is another way to put it. I'm not necessarily saying we have a revenue problem or an expense problem. I'm just saying that we spend more money than we take in, and I'm wondering how you would solve that problem.
Yeah. So the state of Alaska spends more money per capita on government than nearly every other state in the country. So I would argue that we do not have a revenue problem, that we have a spending problem. As I mentioned to you earlier, I think that we already addressed this, but we need to audit. I think that I gave you a handful of areas where we know for sure we probably have some fat. So we need to look at how we spend money and where we are spending money.
There are other components in addition to that. As we talk about the financial situation of the state as a whole, there are several things, right? I'm going to give you the short, quick minute version, because that's all we have time for, though I've spoken about this issue at length.
We need to have a legitimate spending cap in place. We've got a spending cap that is so incredibly high right now, it doesn't work. I would argue that we need to change how we budget, whether we want to look at zero-based budgeting, or we want to look at taking a five-year rolling average. Right now we have departments that are given false choices. They are given a use-it-or-lose-it mentality. So we have departments where we're telling them either, you have to go burn through the cash right now, because if you don't, you're not going to get the money next year. You don't want department heads put in that situation where they feel like, gosh, we got to just go spend it. I mean, we don't really need to, but I guess if we don't, then God forbid it snows an extra 40 feet next year, now we don't have the revenue to do it. So we need to change how we budget so that department heads are not put into that particular situation.
I think that we need to have a conversation about how we are managing our Permanent Fund. The Permanent Fund hit a record value last fall of $85 billion. Alaskans were thrilled. It was still operating at a fraction of the S&P. I think that we need to dive into that conversation.
And so there's about a half a dozen different things that we need to do. These have to be done holistically. You're not going to be able to come in and solve the budget problem with just one thing.
The other thing is we need to get innovation going. What do they say — you can't tax your way to prosperity, right, you can't cut your way to prosperity. We need to talk about building and developing. We're constantly scraping over the little bit that's there, and we just kind of want to fight over the little bit that's on the table. Meanwhile, we've talked about a gas line for 40 years. We're worried that we're not getting enough money. We've debated for 40 years if we're going to make enough money from the gas line. You know how much money we've made from a gas line in 40 years? Do you know what that number is, Eric? It's zero. $0. That's how much we've made off of a gas line in 40 years, because we're worried that we're not getting enough, OK?
So we have all these projects, and we've sat here, and it's like, well, we just got to talk about cuts, cuts or spending more. Now we need to talk about, how do we start an economy? How do we get it going? How do we get innovation and technology going? How do we get good-paying jobs here? Because all of that ultimately contributes to that budget conversation. So, like I say, there's about a half a dozen different things. You can't take just any one of those things and think that they're going to work on their own. We need to take them collectively and put them to work for Alaska.
All right, and I appreciate you returning to that subject for me. I just wanted to make sure we got a clear picture of your plan for the budget.
So there are just days left before the primary. My last question is, how would you distinguish yourself from some of your other conservative competitors, folks like Dave Bronson, Adam Crum, Treg Taylor, Shelley Hughes? And then also, how would you campaign in the general election for second-choice votes from someone whose first choice might be a Democrat, independent or a more moderate Republican?
Yeah, well, I'll answer your second question first, and the thing I'm going to tell you, Eric — I hope you'll give me a little bit of grace on this, but with all due respect to you, that's a strategic question which I'm not willing to share with you. So I suppose your curiosity will have to sit for about 80 days, and all of those answers will indeed be very clear and apparent once those 80 days, roughly, transpire.
In regards to how are you different than the other candidates? Let's talk about that.
So there's a few things. I am one of the only ones in this race that has not worked for government. I come from outside government. I have signed the front of a paycheck. I know the struggles that businesses face every day. I understand firsthand what government regulation and shutdown and closures can do to a business, because I've lived through that. I know sleepless nights, and I know how to deal with things when there is nothing there. When you've completely hit rock bottom, which is the situation Alaska is in. When you completely hit rock bottom, I know how to stand back up. And quite frankly, it's about darn time that we had a governor who did too. I hear all these people about, oh gosh, life's been great, everything's been perfect. Well, I'll tell you what, if it's all been perfect and you don't know sleepless nights, I don't know if you are the one that can pull Alaska through. Because quite frankly, I want someone that's been through hell right now. I want someone who knows what I've been through in order to help pull through.
But the other thing is this: This is not a retirement plan for me. This is not a farewell tour. I am one of the only ones in this race who — if, that's a big if, and God willing, we'll leave that up to the man upstairs — but if I were to serve eight years as your governor, even when eight years is done, I will still not be retirement age. I will have to go back into the economy that we create together, and I'm going to have to stand next to you and live and work in whatever economy it is. This is very personal for me, because I won't be retirement age. I know that I’ve got to go back to it. And so those are very strong distinctions.
I feel very strongly that the next governor has two years. You've got two years with a president who would like to see Alaska flourish. We have two years to make sure that Alaska flourishes. We don't have eight years. We don't have four years. We have to act with a sense of urgency. We need a governor who knows sleepless nights, who knows the stress in their stomach, and knows how to get the job done even in those moments. That's the difference between me and the rest of the field on both sides of the aisle.
