By ED SCHOENFELD
THE JUNEAU EMPIRE

It seems like one step forward and two steps back for both sides in the permanent fund election debate.

The ``yes'' side's step was a telephone effort some called misleading and unethical. The ``no'' side's stride was an advertising campaign slammed as inaccurate and suspiciously funded.

In the meantime, some people are wondering why they're even trying, since the measure, whatever you think of it, seems headed for a sound trouncing at the polls.

For those too busy fishing or watching cruise ship companies make mistakes, we're all supposed to vote Sept. 14. The election is an advisory ballot on the outline of a plan to tap Alaska Permanent Fund earnings to help fund state government.

The basic point of contention is dividends, which are funded out of those same earnings. In a nutshell, the ``yes'' side says the plan would reduce them for a while, but guarantee them for the long run. The ``no'' side says the plan would unfairly tax children and poor people while giving lawmakers more money to waste.

Recently, the ``yes'' side attracted attention it didn't want when it funded a telephone effort. R.T. Nielsen and Co., a Utah firm, rung up registered voters and asked them where they stood on the ballot measure.

Those saying ``yes'' didn't hear much else. Those answering ``no'' were read a script suggesting their choice would leave them without a dividend soon.

Critics said Nielsen callers went too far. They called it a thinly disguised ``push'' poll, a highly questionable telemarketing technique used to sway votes with often inaccurate information.

By pretending to poll, the caller gets under your suspicious skin, influencing your decision by portraying him or herself as an objective deliverer of facts.

Two of the critics were so upset they filed official complaints. Juneau's Dennis Harris sent his objections to the state's campaign watchdog agency, alleging deception and a failure to identify who paid for the effort. And Andrew Thomson of the Alaska Action Center filed his own complaint with the Federal Trade Commission on some related issues.

Cheryl Frasca, treasurer of the ``yes'' group, said what Neilsen did was a voter-identification effort, not a push poll. There was no reference to a survey, she said, and its response to ``no'' voters was not inflammatory.

``Some people are so emotionally involved,'' she said from Anchorage. ``They don't like anybody working on the `yes' side and they reacted accordingly.''

But whatever the intent or wording, it irritated more than a few people.

David Dittman, an Anchorage pollster, said even a voter-identification effort is unethical. That's because it begins with people's assumptions that such surveys are anonymous, then draws up lists of people and what sides they are on.

``That's a breach of research ethics, which embrace and endorse the concept of respondent confidentiality,'' Dittman said. ``It's not a good thing for legitimate research.''

The ``no'' side's major move was new TV ads on a pirate theme, describing ``Republican leaders in the Legislature, backed by multinational oil buccaneers, leading the charge to plunder our Permanent Fund.''

Marc Hellenthal, another Anchorage pollster, said that seems a bit silly, given that Democrats as well as Republicans in the Legislature voted for the measure. The ``no'' side includes majority members. And Gov. Tony Knowles, who at least tells us he's a Democrat, is out there on the front lines of the ``yes'' campaign.

Hellenthal said the ad could backfire on the ``no'' campaign.

``They're trying to make a partisan issue out of something that isn't,'' he said.

The ad campaign by the Anchorage-based group Alaska Conservation Voters got $68,000 from the Seattle-based group Conservation Strategies, funded by wealthy software developer Paul Brainerd.

He and his Brainerd Foundation have funded environmental campaigns opposed by many Alaskans, including efforts to block the Alaska-Juneau gold mine and development in ANWR and the Tongass, said Frasca.

``That's shedding some light on what that vote `no' group is about,'' she said. ``They've hidden behind saying they're for poor people and finally their color is showing and it's green.''

The flaps on the two sides, however, probably won't make much of a difference. Dittman and Hellenthal both said they expect the measure to lose.

And even Frasca's group knows it has more opposition than can likely be overcome. The ``yes'' side's focus has been to point out the permanent fund was set up to fill the sort of budget gap we now have.

That focus, Frasca said, is moving people from the ``no'' column to ``undecided.'' But she admits they're not all the way to ``yes.''

``It takes more time and as a result we don't know if we have enough time to move folks,'' she said.

If the ballot measure fails, the state budget gap will remain. And the education effort involved in the campaign can't help but bring up issues Alaskans need to consider.

``There's value in helping Alaskans understand this,'' Frasca said.