Campaign disclosure complaint filed against former mayoral candidate Bill Popp. He responds

A detailed complaint filed with the Alaska Public Offices Commission alleges that former Anchorage mayoral candidate Bill Popp failed to properly disclose dozens of expenditures during his 2024 campaign, with as many as 31 separate reporting issues highlighted and potential penalties estimated at more than $820,000.

After the 2024 election concluded, Popp won a no-bid contract for work with the LaFrance Administration. He is the former CEO of the Anchorage Economic Development Corporation.

The complaint, submitted by Anchorage resident and political activist Alex Gimarc, argues that Popp’s filings show inconsistent reporting, incomplete descriptions, and bundled payments that obscure how campaign money was actually spent. Nearly all of the alleged violations occurred more than 17 months ago, a lapse that could trigger fines of $50 per day under Alaska campaign finance law.

The complaint’s central concern is transparency. Gimarc asserts that Popp’s filings repeatedly failed to break out specific costs for campaign management, digital advertising, and broadcast media purchases, leaving voters unable to see who was paid, for what work, and in what amounts.

Much of the dispute centers on Winfluence Strategies, LLC, which handled Popp’s campaign management. Winfluence is co-owned by Rep. Chuck Kopp. Gimarc identified four Winfluence invoices from late 2023 ranging between $5,000 and $5,740 that listed campaign management alongside web design, social media management, mail service, graphic design, and ad placement. The complaint argues that Alaska law requires the disclosable cost of each service, including whether subcontractors were used.

Popp, in a written response to APOC, said the invoices reflected an all-inclusive, in-house campaign management contract with Winfluence President Cherie Curry. He said the original filings contained too much detail and were amended to simplify descriptions by listing only “Campaign Management Service Fee.” According to Popp, any outsourced work, such as photography or outside design, was properly listed elsewhere.

The complaint also challenges fluctuations in Winfluence’s fees. A February 2024 invoice shows a $1,500 charge, significantly lower than previous months. Popp responded that the contract amount was temporarily reduced because fewer services were rendered that month.

Gimarc challenges Popp’s reporting of payments to Alpha Media, saying the campaign did not identify which sites, platforms, or placements were used for digital advertising. Alaska’s disclosure regulations require specificity for each advertising expenditure.

Popp countered that digital advertising cannot be itemized the way traditional broadcast placements can. He said Alpha Media executed a multi-platform, metrics-driven digital buy that generated more than 677,000 impressions across hundreds of websites, depending on targeting criteria. He urged APOC to modernize its reporting requirements to better reflect digital media realities.

The complaint also raises concerns about several radio and television buys in March 2024, including approximately $18,000 in spending that did not individually list the amount allocated to each station. The APOC regulation and a 2020 agency notice specifically require reporting each station payment separately.

Popp acknowledged that the dollar amounts should have been placed directly next to the station names and said the filings were amended. He noted that one broadcast package from Coastal Media was billed at $800 but run on two stations at $400 each, information that the campaign added after the complaint.

In his response, Popp complains that the complaint is politically motivated. He points to Gimarc’s longstanding criticism of former Rep. Chuck Kopp, who now serves as vice president at Winfluence Strategies and was not yet a public official during the campaign. Popp argues that Gimarc’s claims do not reflect an attempt to ensure transparency but a personal attack on him and his campaign team.

Gimarc, in turn, argues that Popp’s reliance on political motives is pure deflection. In the complaint, he states that referencing Kopp amounts to an admission that relationships within the campaign are directly connected to the reporting lapses. Popp’s request for dismissal suggests a belief that the disclosure laws do not apply to him.

The complaint concludes that 31 separate items appear to violate APOC regulations, all occurring more than 530 days ago. At $50 per day, each unresolved violation could result in significant fines, totaling more than $821,500 if upheld. Rarely are fines that large levied against liberal candidates in Alaska.

Gimarc notes that while some items were properly reported, such as a March 11 media buy and a 105-day report filed personally by Popp, other similar items were not, undermining voter confidence in the accuracy and consistency of the overall filings.

APOC will review the complaint, Popp’s response, and any amended disclosures before determining whether a formal investigation or enforcement action is warranted.