FBI agents have interviewed a former Alaska Republican lawmaker after a Democratic operative allegedly posed as a conservative recruiter and urged him to enter the state’s U.S. Senate race under the guise of a “Decoy Dan Sullivan” scheme. The interview follows a broader congressional probe into the controversial ballot maneuver.
FBI Probes Decoy Dan Sullivan Scheme
Article III Project attorney Will Chamberlain said the coordinated effort to deceive voters about a candidate’s identity could violate 18 U.S.C. § 241, the federal conspiracy‑against‑rights statute. The statute makes it a crime to conspire to deprive individuals of their constitutional rights.
Chamberlain warned that prosecutors could pursue a federal felony if they establish that participants conspired to interfere with voters’ constitutional right to choose their candidate. Such a violation could carry a prison term of up to ten years.
Legal and Political Repercussions
Former state Representative David Eastman told Fox News Digital he was approached by an operative who claimed to represent conservative donors and encouraged him to run for Senate, while receiving fake mailers that omitted Senator Sullivan from the ballot. He emphasized that the mailers were designed to mislead voters about the true candidates.
Eastman said the operative never mentioned Sullivan or disclosed a plan to confuse voters during their April meeting. Eastman said the operative’s demeanor raised further suspicion after media reports linked him to the scheme.
The FBI has also interviewed Eastman, and Fox News Digital has sought comment from the Democratic National Committee, the Peltola campaign, and Wingspan Strategies, where the operative is listed as co‑owner. The bureau declined to comment on the specifics of the investigation.
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer has demanded that the operative appear for a transcribed interview on November 6, warning that compulsory process will be used if he refuses. Comer’s letter underscores the seriousness of the alleged coordination.
The controversy centers on whether a same‑name candidate constitutes illegal ballot manipulation or merely slanted political messaging, a question that has no direct precedent in federal case law. Legal experts say the case could set a new precedent for election‑related conspiracies.
