A government watchdog has filed a federal complaint accusing a retired teacher running under the same name as Alaska's Republican senator of illegally coordinating with a left-leaning group that spent $1.5 million on ads attacking the incumbent, a scheme critics say was designed to confuse voters.
Americans for Public Trust filed the complaint with the Federal Election Commission this week, alleging that Dan J. Sullivan, the candidate dubbed "Decoy Dan", and the 907 Initiative, a liberal advocacy group, coordinated their efforts through a shared operative: veteran Democratic strategist Amber Lee. Lee simultaneously worked for the decoy candidate's campaign and sat on the board of the outside group while it poured money into ads against Sen. Dan S. Sullivan (R-Alaska), the New York Post reported.
The complaint lays out a timeline that the watchdog says makes the coordination unmistakable. The 907 Initiative launched an ad titled "Stop Raising Costs" slamming the incumbent senator one day before Dan J. Sullivan officially filed his candidacy on May 29. At the same time, Lee was helping the decoy candidate file his paperwork and, per the complaint, "helped author some of Dan J. Sullivan's campaign materials", all while her group was already reserving ad time against the real senator.
Federal election law prohibits coordination between campaigns and outside spending groups. The complaint from Americans for Public Trust argues that Lee's dual role, paid consultant to the Sullivan decoy campaign and board member of the group spending against the incumbent, is the clearest possible violation of that rule.
Caitlin Sutherland, APT's executive director, told the Post that the arrangement left no room for ambiguity:
"It is absolutely a violation of federal election law for someone to wear two hats. You can't both work for the campaign and work for the outside group that's running millions of dollars in advertisements that's benefiting the campaign that you're working for."
The complaint puts hard numbers behind the allegation. The 907 Initiative spent roughly $1.5 million on ads attacking Sen. Sullivan. About $575,000 of that spending landed during the final 90 days of the primary race. Dan J. Sullivan's campaign, meanwhile, owed Amber Lee Strategies $4,380.41, a modest sum, but one that establishes a direct financial relationship between the candidate and the strategist who also sat on the outside group's board.
In the complaint's language, that financial link is "the third and final prong to establish coordination." The watchdog is now asking the FEC to open a formal probe.
Sutherland framed the case as unusually straightforward:
"Sometimes when individuals do engage in schemes, it can be a little bit difficult to see what is happening. This is just a very clear example of coordination."
Aubrey Wieber, the 907 Initiative's executive director, pushed back hard, calling the allegation "patently false." He drew a distinction between Lee's role as a board member and actual employment, telling the Post that the group "has never employed or paid Amber Lee."
"907 Initiative had no involvement with any work between Dan J. Sullivan and Amber Lee. I found out about the connection by reading the news."
That defense hinges on a narrow reading of the relationship. Lee was not a rank-and-file donor or casual volunteer. She served as a director and secretary of the 907 Initiative, Newsmax reported, while simultaneously consulting for the campaign that stood to benefit most from the group's ad spending. Whether the FEC considers that arrangement "coordination" under federal law, regardless of whether a paycheck changed hands, is now the central question.
Lee's connection to the decoy campaign first surfaced in an August report by the New York Times. Dan J. Sullivan indicated to the Times that the two had since cut ties, but the complaint focuses on the period when both relationships were active and the ads were running.
The coordination allegation sits on top of an already suspicious candidacy. Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher, registered as a Republican just days before filing to run for Senate on May 29. He admitted to the New York Times that he voted Democratic in the last three presidential cycles, participated in a "No Kings" protest, and supported Democrat Mary Peltola in both of her congressional campaigns. The broader concern among Republicans watching a tightening 2026 Senate map is that the candidacy was never meant to win, it was meant to siphon votes from the incumbent by putting a nearly identical name on the ballot.
Alaska's elections director, Carol Beecher, reached the same conclusion earlier this summer. She kicked Dan J. Sullivan off the ballot on June 15, finding that he was running a bad-faith campaign aimed at tricking GOP voters. Beecher noted that the color scheme of the decoy's initial campaign website looked remarkably similar to the incumbent senator's. She also flagged that he used Sen. Sullivan's middle initial in a private email to her, though he later corrected it.
Courts reversed Beecher's decision on June 30, allowing Dan J. Sullivan back on the ballot. He advanced to the general election after last month's jungle primary, Alaska's system in which all candidates run on a single ballot and the top four advance.
The results from that primary tell their own story. Peltola took 49.5% of the vote. Sen. Sullivan received 41.4%. In the latest RealClearPolitics polling average, Peltola leads the incumbent by two points heading into the general election. In a race that tight, even a small number of confused voters casting ballots for the wrong Sullivan could tip the outcome.
The FEC complaint is not the only legal cloud over the decoy campaign. A separate federal investigation is reportedly examining whether there was a conspiracy to confuse voters, and grand jury subpoenas have already been issued in connection with the probe. That investigation, first reported by NBC News, operates on a parallel track from the FEC matter but underscores the seriousness with which federal authorities are treating the candidacy.
For voters who care about election integrity, the Alaska situation presents a textbook case of the kind of manipulation that erodes public trust. A candidate with no apparent Republican convictions enters a race under a name designed to confuse, backed by a Democratic strategist who simultaneously sits on the board of the outside group spending millions against the real Republican incumbent. The watchdog complaint asks the FEC to determine whether that arrangement crossed the line from cynical politics into federal crime.
Accountability in cases like these matters beyond Alaska. When political operatives can allegedly manipulate ballot lines and coordinate outside spending without consequence, it invites repetition, the same kind of institutional failure that has prompted Republican demands for accountability across other agencies and institutions. The question now is whether the FEC will act, or whether the complaint will gather dust while the general election plays out.
Critics of the scheme have been clear about what they believe happened. Opponents have leveled accusations of political deception before without the evidence to back them up. In this case, the paper trail, the consulting payments, the board seat, the ad reservations, the timeline, is sitting in the FEC's inbox.
If a Democratic strategist can work for a spoiler candidate and sit on the board of the group spending $1.5 million against the candidate's opponent, and nobody faces consequences, then the rules exist only on paper.
