Giesseled: Anchorage senator implies PFD advocacy could be criminal if legislator has children

By SUZANNE DOWNING

Sen. Cathy Giessel is drawing sharp criticism from constituents after suggesting in her legislative newsletter that newly appointed Rep. Garret Nelson’s support for a full Permanent Fund dividend could constitute a conflict of interest, or even criminal behavior,  because he has nine children.

In her newsletter, Giessel commented on Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s appointment of Nelson to the Alaska House seat vacated by the former Rep. George Rauscher. She wrote: “Dunleavy chose Garret Nelson, an online salesman and father of nine who lives in Sutton, to fill a seat previously held by George Rauscher.”

Giessel then added her own commentary:

“My comment: Mr. Nelson stands to receive $38,500 ($3500 x 11) as he advocates for “full Dividend”. At what point does a vote for a ‘full dividend’ comprise a conflict of interest, or even a breach of ethics? Legislators have gone to jail in the past for accepting money in payment for their votes.”

The implication is unmistakable: She is saying that Nelson’s advocacy for a full dividend, a policy position shared by many Alaskans and supported by Alaska statute, is tantamount to voting himself money and could warrant criminal prosecution.

Giessel’s language suggests Nelson is acting corruptly simply because he has children who would benefit from a policy that applies equally to all eligible Alaskans.

There is no legal or ethical standard that disqualifies a legislator from voting on broadly applicable public policy because they or their family are affected by it. By her logic, no legislator with children could vote on education, no hunter could vote on land policy, no homeowner could vote on property taxes, and no working adult could vote on any income-related policy.

Under Alaska law, the Alaska Permanent Fund dividend is a statutorily established oil royalty paid to all qualifying residents. Since Gov. Bill Walker vetoed half of Alaskans’ dividends in 2016, the legislature has followed suit and the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled the statute doesn’t matter.

Giessel’s comments have also renewed scrutiny of her broader political realignment. Once regarded as a conservative Republican and pro-life advocate, Giessel has increasingly voted in alignment with Democrats in recent years, particularly on abortion policy.

Earlier in her legislative career, Giessel sponsored pro-life legislation, including SB 124 in 2018, known as the “Born Alive” bill, which addressed medical care for infants born alive after attempted abortions.

However, since 2022 she has opposed efforts to restrict abortion, citing Alaska’s constitutional privacy protections.

In 2023, she said she would not support a constitutional amendment to protect the unborn, and in 2024 she voted with Democrats to defeat an amendment that would have defunded most Medicaid-paid abortions.

While Giessel has described herself as “personally pro-life,” her voting record has increasingly aligned with pro-death positions backed by Planned Parenthood and Senate Democrats.

Now, her newsletter goes further, not only rejecting conservative positions, but suggesting that legislators who support a full Permanent Fund dividend while having children are ethically suspect or even criminally liable.

Giessel has not clarified what threshold, if any, she believes would make a legislator’s family size ethically acceptable, nor has she cited any statute or ethics ruling supporting her implication that advocating for a statutory dividend could send a lawmaker to jail.

The episode has become less about dividend policy and more about the use of ethics language to cast political opponents as corrupt, a charge they say crosses from policy disagreement into character attack and attacking people for their families.

Giessel, who serves on the Senate Transportation Committee, is married other an employee of the Department of Transportation.