Any number of law firms might be interested in helping the state of Alaska pursue the Dunleavy/Clarkson anti-union crusade to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But there is one sentence in the request for proposals that potential bidders should heed: “Approval or continuation of a contract resulting from this is contingent upon legislative appropriation.”

The boilerplate language is significant in this instance because there is a real possibility that the Legislature will make a sensible decision and refuse to appropriate the $500,000 to $600,000 promised to the recipient of the contract.

Attorney General Kevin Clarkson, who sees himself on a mission to the highest court in the land, seems prepared to lose in Alaska courts on his bid to make it harder for public employee unions to collect dues.

He is pushing an argument that other state courts and federal courts have already rejected, but he hopes the conservative majority on the Supreme Court will see things his way.

Clarkson wants to get this case to federal court as soon as possible, but the state legal process has a long way to run. The job for the contractor will be to defend Clarkson’s opinion in federal court, hoping to establish a precedent for the nation, courtesy of Gov. Mike Dunleavy, Clarkson and the residents of Alaska.

Anchorage Sen. Bill Wielechowski, who will have many allies in the Legislature opposing the $600,000 appropriation, says it could easily cost a couple of million to see this through.

Clarkson may already have taken legislative opposition to funding the crusade into account, but the zero-payday possibility should be explained to Outside law firms unfamiliar with the political situation in Alaska.

Clarkson may hope that right-wing interests Outside will pay all the legal bills if the Legislature refuses.

When the Legislature reviews Clarkson’s $600,000 plan, there should be pointed questions about his original no-bid deal, which has already cost the state $100,000, paid to President Trump’s lawyers at the Alaska discount of $600 an hour.

Among the issues that deserve investigation are whether Clarkson and his staff knew in August that the anti-union fight would take much more than $50,000 to complete, why Trump’s lawyer was favored with a no-bid deal and if the amount was set as a means of avoiding competition.

The state says that that cost of the new contract will be a small element in deciding who gets the work, as 70 precent of the evaluation will be based on experience, qualifications and organization.