Opinion: Jason Chaffetz Says Mary Peltola Owes Alaskans the Truth About the 'Second Dan Sullivan' Effort
In a Fox News column, the former Utah congressman calls the New York Times report on a namesake spoiler candidate 'a character test' for the Democratic Senate nominee. Peltola and the DSCC deny involvement. It is commentary.
A Fox News columnist argues a Democratic Senate nominee has dodged the central question of her campaign's final week. This is opinion, and the judgments are the author's.
The writer. Jason Chaffetz is a former Republican congressman from Utah, writing in Fox News opinion.
The argument. Chaffetz says Mary Peltola's campaign keeps repeating denials while The New York Times has documented what he calls the truth. The Times reported that Peltola campaign aides and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee staffers worked to recruit extra candidates, including a man named Daniel J. Sullivan, to peel votes from Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan under ranked-choice voting. The paper, drawing on texts, documents and interviews, reported Peltola was "definitely aware" of the effort. The campaign and the DSCC deny involvement.
The charge. "This is a character test for Mary Peltola," he writes. He says nobody believed the namesake's name landed on the ballot organically, and that "if the allegations are true, imagine what she might be willing to do once voters give her power." He points out that the accused parties did not condemn the effort and took their position publicly and in federal litigation over certification. He adds that the former campaign manager's account to the Times, and an Elias Law Group attorney for both the campaign and the DSCC being looped into related talks, suggest "the whole team lied about it" if the allegations hold.
The close. "Democrats didn't try to persuade Alaskans. They tried to trick them," he writes, and says Peltola "owes Alaskans the truth."
This is opinion. Peltola and the DSCC dispute the allegations, and the Times account is based on documents and interviews we have not reviewed. Chaffetz's "if the allegations hold" is a condition, not a finding.