Real truth about candidates never easy to uncover

With a week to go before the Oct. 4 municipal election, voters may feel at a loss to piece together the puzzle of which candidates to vote for. Information about some candidates has not been hard to come by, but the source and context of that information may not always inspire confidence.

Local civic organizations have sponsored candidate forums, and this newspaper has printed candidate statements about the issues. Paid advertising also provides information to voters. None of these, however, can reliably predict any gap that may exist between words and after-the-fact deeds.

As an example, almost no one, it seems, will cop to being in favor raising taxes. Yet higher taxes, in some form, are almost always predictable.

Candidates, nearly to the person, will also say they are in favor of cutting spending, finding new revenue sources and supporting the local economy. How many offer specifics, though? It's enough to make voters throw their hands up in frustration, especially given the limited number of hours in a day and the seemingly endless demands on time.

For those who have time and want a more in-depth look at individual candidates, the Alaska Public Offices Commission Web site can provide some useful additional information, in a straighforward, nonpartisan manner. At the site - www.state.ak.us/ apoc/index.htm - voters can navigate to "campaign disclosure reports," then "2005 municipal candidates" to find specific races and candidates.

Want to know who's funding a candidate? Click the link to that candidate's 30-day report, then see the list of contributors and the amount of their donations under the "income" link.

What you won't find there is an explanation of the donor's motivation. That's unfortunate, given the number of entries that would not seem to have a vested interest in, say, who gets to be mayor of Wasilla.

Of perhaps more tangible use is the information under the "expenses" link. By looking at the percentage of funds expended outside the Valley, for example, voters can get a better handle on who puts their money where their mouth is when it comes to supporting local businesses.

One drawback is that not all candidates are listed with APOC. If a candidate chooses not to raise money, as is the case with two candidates for the Borough Assembly, two Wasilla mayor candidates, and all city council candidates in Palmer, Wasilla and Houston, then he or she has nothing to report.

Of those who did report, though, Cindy Bettine, who is running for the Borough Assembly's District 5 seat, and Wasilla mayor candidate Diana Straub are the clear "Shop the Valley" champs.

Of the $4,644.72 in expenses Bettine has listed through early September, nearly 89 percent was spent locally. Both of her District 5 opponents, Hank Corbin and Jay Nolfi, are exempt from APOC filings because they are not raising money for their campaigns.

Straub kept about 91 percent of her $3,069.82 in campaign expenses in the Valley, while 49 percent of incumbent Dianne M. Keller's 4,852.52 in campaign expenses has been spent locally.

Among District 4 assembly candidates, incumbent Mary Kvalheim spent about 72 percent of the $6,094.96 listed as expenses locally, while just 22 percent of challenger Greg Koskela's expenditures through early September stayed in the Valley.

The information contained at the APOC site is by no means everything a voter needs to know. But it does provide important context and hopefully will broaden the perspective of anyone planning to vote next week.