Violations in this complaint strike at the heart of campaign disclosure law. The purpose of the itinerary was campaign-related strategic planning and operational development. Assemblymember George Martinez illegally used campaign funds for an end-of-the-year mileage run. He claims it was a solo strategic planning trip, but the testimony at the hearing tells a very different story. Respondent booked an 8,000-mile round-trip journey in an Anchorage municipal election with no obvious need for air travel.

The flight as booked allowed respondent a total of 63 minutes on the ground. The day after booking the trip to Port Lauderdale. Respondent contributed $1,000 to Choose Inc. Those who donated outside the booking process received status points, making them eligible for higher levels of airline benefits. Here's George Martinez explaining the trip under oath. Okay, do you swear and affirm that the testimony and evidence that you will produce today in Matter 2603-CD is true and accurate?

Yes. The purpose of the itinerary was campaign-related strategic planning and operational development. Any incidental status-related benefits were unknown at the time of the transaction. They were not part of the expenditure rationale. Martinez is asking people to believe that his campaign needed him to wake up in the middle of the night, get in the middle seat for a 2 AM flight, spend more than 24 hours traveling across the country and back with a 63-minute stop in Florida because that was somehow the best way to conduct campaign planning.

Commissioners had many questions and he came back with the same prepared statements. Why did you choose to go to Fort Lauderdale to undertake this strategic planning mission? Again, the purpose of the itinerary was campaign-related strategic planning and operational development. The itinerary was not destination-based, so the purpose was planning environment created by the itinerary itself, not the destination. Are you saying that sitting in an airplane chair, that was conducive to your strategic planning?

There are 20 hours of uninterrupted planning time associated with the creation of the itinerary. Mr. Martinez, can you, can you give us an idea of why you chose to isolate yourself on an airliner for a total of about 20 hours instead of just staying at home, turning off the cell phone, and contemplating the strategic direction of your campaign? That was the environment that made most sense to me. Reasonable people make different strategic choices based on what works for them. The strategic— the environment created by the itinerary itself was conducive to the work that needed to get done and delivered.

He couldn't answer simple questions on his status or the number of points he has. This is something that he easily could have provided. During 2025, how many elite status points did you accumulate? I'm not sure. Well, could you take a moment to find out?

It's readily accessible on the Alaska Airlines website. I don't understand the question. How many status points did you earn during 2025? And you should be able to go to the ATMAS website. I'm just trying to land what the question is.

Thank you, Commissioner. How many did you accumulate during the year 2025? Well, Commissioner, respectfully, the, the, the reporting question is about a campaign-related activity. The main allegation is that you received a personal benefit by taking a pretty much unnecessary trip. And to my understanding, the transaction itself did not result in a new status.

The incidental status points were not part of the rationale of the transaction. So can you provide that information or not? I'm still not sure what information you're requesting, sir. The day after he booked the Fort Lauderdale trip, his campaign spent another $1,000 for sustainable aviation fuel and carbon offsets. The $1,000 purchase would still not be reasonably related to the campaign because it was far more than what the emissions offset would have been for the Fort Lauderdale trip alone.

This was advertised to generate Alaska Airlines status points. The maximum amount eligible for the promotion status points was $1,000, and he spent exactly $1,000— not the amount that matched the actual carbon offset for the trip, exactly the amount needed to max out the status points promotion. The points were unknown to me at the time of the expenditure and were subsequently added to the account as the record indicates. He says that the points were unknown to him, but on the checkout page, the status point language is right where you enter your mileage plan number. It's a coincidence that you got those miles before the January 1st deadline?

Reported the campaign expenditures were focused on strategic planning and operation, and the incidental benefit was unrelated to the purpose of the expenditure. It was just a coincidence that you got it in before the end of the year, those miles you needed for your your status. It's not— the question's not going to go away, sir. We need to know this. Speaking of coincidences is not where I feel comfortable.

The whole hearing was wild. I think this summarizes most of it. Well, actually, what you responded to didn't make any sense to me. I refuse to answer. I mean, your answers were pretty evasive.

I find it rather difficult to believe that APOC found that travel and related expenses were not reasonably related to campaign activity. They found that these expenses provided a personal benefit. They ordered full repayment and imposed the maximum penalty. And APOC found that his testimony was not credible. This was not a paperwork mistake.

This was a personal mileage run where a member of the assembly lied under oath. It is about whether the public can trust an elected official to tell the truth under oath when he is required to account for his own conduct. George Martinez fundamentally broke the public trust. He should resign from the Anchorage Assembly or be removed from office.