Former Alaska Commissioner of Revenue and candidate for governor, Adam Crum, made a campaign stop in Homer last Thursday. This was the first opportunity for most of us in the audience to hear from the relatively unknown candidate. Based on his positions on the issues and the open, honest way he answered questions, Mr. Crum will be very popular with conservative voters. It is far too early in this race to make any election predictions, but Mr. Crum should be considered a dark horse candidate, and other campaigns should watch out for him.

Mr. Crum’s visit was similar to most candidate campaign stops. He gave a short stump speech outlining what he would do as governor. He highlighted his experience leading both the Department of Health and the Department of Revenue. He noted that funding the state budget was the most pressing issue facing Alaska, and that his experience would help address the problems. He summarized his comments, saying that he is a lifelong Alaskan, and his goal was to build a state in which his young children could grow up and thrive. It was a nice speech, and afterwards he took questions from the audience.

Mr. Crum was asked for his position on a wide variety of subjects, including his position on an income tax (opposed), Trawl Fishery bycatch (wants a hard limit), Covid facemasks (never worked), and a defined benefit retirement plan for state workers (opposed). All of his responses were about what you would expect from a conservative Republican and seemed to resonate with the audience.

Mr. Crum is the first candidate to have addressed this critical issue correctly when first asked.

However, it was his answers to two critical questions that will define Mr. Crum’s candidacy and set him apart from the other Republicans running for governor. These questions were how he responded when asked about an attack article written by the Anchorage Daily News, and his view on the changes made to Grand Jury Rights by the Alaska Supreme Court.

On January 20^th, the Anchorage Daily News published an article critical of Mr. Crum. The article stated that as revenue commissioner, he invested part of the Congressional Budget Reserve Fund (CBRF) into a longer-term investment that paid a higher yield, but that it made it more difficult to access those funds. The ADN quoted Senator Bert Stedman, a RINO member of the Democrat led caucus that runs Alaska’s legislature, who suggested that while Mr. Crum did nothing illegal, he may have breached his fiduciary duty in administering the assets.

What Steadman meant is that the Democrats and their Vichy Republican friends in the state senate don’t like anything that hinders their access to the CBRF funds. They evidently have plans to spend all of that money in the current session and are angry at anyone who slows that from happening.

This issue could be a hot potato for Mr. Crum, and the temptation for him might have been to give a typical politician’s non-answer, answer. The kind that politicians usually give when they receive tough questions and don’t want to commit to anything. Instead, Mr. Crum answered the question completely, honestly, and in great detail. He summarized the situation and said that everything he did was legal and approved beforehand by both Governor Dunleavy and AG Treg Taylor. He gave more additional information than I can summarize in this article. The important point is that Mr. Crum didn’t try to duck the question but addressed it head-on and gave a thoughtful and complete answer. That kind of directness and honesty is uncommon among most politicians and refreshing to see.

The second difficult question Mr. Crum faced was when he was asked about grand jury rights in Alaska and if the changes made by the Alaska Supreme Court to the grand jury process (SCO 1993) were unconstitutional. Mr. Crum answered unequivocally. He said there was no doubt that SCO 1993 was an unconstitutional order, and Attorney General Treg Taylor had an obligation to challenge the order when it was first issued in 2022. He said the courts don’t get to make arbitrary changes to Alaska’s Constitution to benefit themselves or remove the judiciary from citizen oversight. He also said that he supports forcing the release of the suppressed report from the 2022 Kenai Grand Jury that inspired the court to issue SCO 1993. I cannot think of a better or more complete answer to this question. Mr. Crum clearly understands the importance of this issue to Alaskans.

Mr. Crum is the first candidate to have addressed this critical issue correctly when first asked. He didn’t need more time to form his answer; he didn’t have to talk to campaign consultants first, and he didn’t complain about how difficult the fight would be. Mr. Crum said it was an important issue and one that, if elected, he would take on. For his forthrightness and thoughtful consideration of the subject, Mr. Crum deserves recognition.

The biggest challenge facing Mr. Crum is that he is relatively unknown to most voters. In a poll of Republican candidates at the Ninilchik State Fair last August, Mr. Crum came in 6^th. While he is on the right side of most issues, especially the grand jury question, Mr. Crum will only do well in this election if he can get his message out to the public. Mr. Crum has a big hill to climb, and while he is the dark horse in this race, sometimes dark horses win.

The views expressed here are those of Greg Sarber. Read more Sarber posts at his Seward’s Folly substack.

Click here to support the Alaska Watchman.