“Pay Alaskans back the amounts cut from their 2016, 2017 and 2018 Permanent Fund Dividends.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
All three cited sources are reachable and each supports the ATTEMPTED outcome for this specific promise; all three quotes verify. (1) The PRIMARY gov.alaska.gov page (dated Jan 17, 2019 — the promise date) confirms the title "Governor Dunleavy Unveils PFD Back Pay Legislation" verbatim and the phrase "restoring full dividends and repaying Alaskans monies owed for years 2016, 2017, and 2018" verbatim, documenting the concrete official action of introducing back-pay bills ($3,678 total spread across 2019-2021). This is the genuine attempt through the normal process. (2) The KTOO/Alaska Public Media article confirms verbatim "Last year's bill to pay back the three previous years of PFD cuts hasn't been passed by either chamber," plus bipartisan legislative opposition (Pruitt, Edgmon, Giessel, Bishop) — establishing the legislation stalled and failed. (3) The Alaska Landmine piece confirms verbatim that "most political observers correctly saw Dunleavy's 'full PFD' and 'back-pay' concept as nothing more than a campaign tactic," and that it was never enacted, with Dunleavy shifting to a 50/50 position. Adversarial test: ATTEMPTED is precise and not overstated — there was a real, documented legislative effort (bills introduced and pushed for over a year) that failed in the legislature, and zero back pay was ever disbursed, so it is neither PARTIAL (no portion delivered) nor a bare abandonment. The outcome is clearly determinable: the money was never repaid.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.