WASHINGTON - TelAve -- Creating possible confusion by promoting the candidacy of an unknown person with the same last name as the Republican candidate for senator in Alaska has been called a deliberate "sham" and a "fraudulent" effort to confuse voters and siphon votes away from incumbent Sen. Dan S. Sullivan in the Senate race, but it's probably neither a crime nor a civil wrong [tort], argues public interest law professor John Banzhaf.

Although Attorney General Todd Blanche, who filed a lawsuit which would challenge the election if a Democrat won, has stated that "there could be a crime,"   and DOJ reportedly issued grand jury subpoenas regarding the same-name candidate's motives for running in the Alaska primary, Banzhaf agrees with virtually all other legal experts - including those who are conservative and/or support Republicans - that simply trying to confuse voters in this way is not a crime.

Indeed, a challenge to this candidacy went to the Alaska Supreme Court which ruled the other Sullivan was qualified to run, since the U.S. Constitution sets out only age, citizenship and residency requirements to run for the Senate.

More on TelAve News

• Access Control Security Shares 5 Ways Retailers Can Prevent Holiday Theft
• Extreme Lead Program Highlights $27 Real Human Traffic Test for Affiliate and Network Marketers
• Longevity Academy Features Gail Humble, MD of KLOTHO SKIN in the Longevity Leaders Project
• Datavalet Named One of Quebec's Best Workplaces™ for 2026
• Phinge Corporation Engages Sheridan Ross PC for Certain Intellectual Property Matters

Also, although the New York Times reported on "documents prepared for a potential lawsuit against the campaign," it does not appear that the alleged wrong fits into any recognized tort [civil action] category which could provide a basis for a civil lawsuit against anyone involved in the alleged intent to mislead, engage in fraud, perpetrate a misrepresentation, etc.

Indeed, the only basis for a possible civil action - the so-called "prima facie tort" - has apparently never been recognized as valid in Alaska, although it is well established in New York and perhaps elsewhere, says Banzhaf, who had to unearth a tort theory [cause of action] which dated back to the middle ages in order to force Spiro Agnew to repay the money he had received in bribes when Maryland refused to sue him.

JOHN F. BANZHAF III, B.S.E.E., J.D., Sc.D.
Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School
"The Man Behind the Ban on Cigarette Commercials"
FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor
Fellow, World Technology Network
Founder, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
Inventor of the "Banzhaf Index"
(202) 994-7229 // (703) 527-8418
http://banzhaf.net/   jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com   @profbanzhaf