By SUZANNE DOWNING
Oct. 28, 2026 – Mary Peltola’s campaign participated in a covert effort to recruit candidates who could draw votes away from Republican US Sen. Dan Sullivan, according to a new investigation by The New York Times.
The Times broke the story Wednesday of an operation that allegedly involved senior Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee aides, campaign advisers and an operative who traveled Alaska using a false name.
The reporting adds an account of internal campaign discussions to a controversy The Alaska Story has covered extensively: The Petersburg candidate known as “Decoy Dan” is believed to have entered the race to intentionally confuse voters and help elect Peltola.
Breaking: DOJ sues Alaska over ‘Decoy Dan,’ seeks certification delay if voter confusion tips Senate race
Both Peltola’s campaign and the DSCC denied recruiting candidates.
According to the Times, the effort began in summer 2025, when a Peltola staffer was instructed to search voter records for Alaskans named Dan Sullivan. The objective was to find someone whose name could draw votes intended for the incumbent.
The newspaper reported that the undertaking, known internally as the “ballot composition project,” extended beyond finding another Sullivan. Participants also explored recruiting other candidates, supporting them through outside spending and establishing a new right-wing political party.
The Times based its investigation on interviews with 12 people, dozens of text messages and documents prepared for a potential lawsuit against the campaign.
A central source was Elisa Rios, Peltola’s former campaign manager, who was fired during an August staff shake-up. Rios told the newspaper that Peltola did not directly participate in the project but knew about it.
Before publication, however, Rios sought to retract all her statements and said she no longer wanted to be a source. The Times disclosed that reversal and said her earlier interviews were consistent with its other reporting. Rios had contemplated a wrongful termination lawsuit but had not filed one, according to the newspaper.
The Times identified Ohio political operative Jerid Kurtz as a key figure in the recruitment effort. Rios said DSCC aides introduced Kurtz to her and Anton McParland, then Peltola’s chief of staff.
According to Rios’s account to the Times, Kurtz later reported making contact with the Petersburg Sullivan, describing him as receptive to running if doing so would help Peltola.
The Petersburg candidate has maintained that he entered independently. He did not respond to the Times’ latest requests for comment. He suddenly changed his voter registration back to “Undeclared” this week.
Another prospective candidate, Matthew Salisbury of Anchorage, told the newspaper that a man calling himself Zane approached him about running for Senate and offered the prospect of outside support. Salisbury identified Kurtz from a photograph as the man he had met. Salisbury ultimately did not run.
Kurtz did not respond to the newspaper’s requests for comment.
The investigation also examined Democrat David Leslie’s withdrawal after the August primary. Leslie’s departure opened the fourth general-election ballot position for Gerald Heikes, leaving Peltola as the only Democrat facing three Republican-identified candidates.
Leslie told the Times that Kurtz was among those who contacted him about withdrawing. The newspaper reported that Kurtz sent Leslie a congratulatory text on the day he dropped out.
Heikes separately told the Times that a Midwestern man had encouraged him to run and promised outside backing. He did not remember the man’s name and said the recruiter did not resemble the photograph of Kurtz.
The Alaska Story reported Sept. 1 that Leslie’s withdrawal produced a ballot favorable to Peltola by consolidating Democratic support while leaving additional candidates competing for Republican-leaning voters.
The Alaska Story also previously documented the Petersburg Sullivan’s Democratic voting history and the controversy surrounding his Republican candidacy. Its Aug. 18 article noted that direct coordination with Peltola’s campaign had not been publicly established at that time.
The new Times investigation reports evidence reaching inside the campaign and the national Democratic apparatus.
It also raises questions about outside spending. According to the Times’ review of federal records, the pro-Peltola 49th State PAC paid about $87,000 this fall to Wingspan Strategies, a firm Kurtz co-owns. The PAC denies hiring or paying Kurtz personally for services.
Political consultant Jim Lottsfeldt disputes Rios’s account that a dinner with campaign employees included discussion of supporting long-shot candidates. He also denies any association with Alaska Values, a super PAC supporting Heikes, despite his name appearing on advertising paperwork reviewed by the Times.
The Peltola campaign denies involvement with either Sullivan campaign or recruiting candidates. The DSCC likewise denies recruiting Sullivan or other Republican candidates.
The revelations arrive days before the Nov. 3 election and amid a Justice Department lawsuit seeking to block certification under circumstances in which confusion between the two Sullivans could determine the outcome.
This is a developing story and more details may be added later today.
One thought on “Breaking: New York Times investigation ties Mary Peltola to Decoy Dan recruitment”
Everyone—please read the New York Times story. It turns my stomach. This was not some dark money strategist came up with the idea. It was people who reported directly to Mary Peltola. People who had Mary’s trust. People who were good people in Msry’s judgment. This turns my stomach because it demonstrates once again that Mary lacks good judgment when it comes to people. If you have been reading my posts over the last several months you know I believe that candidates should be judged by the quality of their entourage. Personnel is not just politics, but ethics. And the NYT story reinforces once again that legitimate concerns Alaskans should have about Mary.
She either consented to this scheme, failed to establish an ethics culture within her campaign, didn’t care what her inner circle was doing in her name, oblivious to the need to police her staffers, or simply in lalaland. The truth is all of the above.
Even if you like Mary’s policies, even if you want a Democrat controlled Senate, even if you want the next Senator to be Native, the truth is that Mary’s operation was, is, and will be a hot mess. And that is all on Mary.
Alaskans, do Alaska a favor and vote for Dan. I say this as a once Mary supporter and the longest serving Lisa policy staffer in the Senate. I’ve had friction with Dan’s team and scratched my head over many of Lisa’s non-Alaska hires. But I remain a true believer that there is good in politics.
Ethics is non-negotiable. Reckless staff management is unacceptable. Making the same bad personnel choices again and again is unacceptable. Mary is unacceptable.