Supreme Court Vacates 9th Circuit Court's Ruling on Alaska's $500 Limit for Campaign ContributionsBy MARY KAUFFMAN
December 06, 2019
The case, Thompson v. Hebdon, was a First Amendment challenge to Alaska’s campaign finance law, including its contribution limits for state legislative candidates and its limit on contributions from out-of-state donors.
As the Court described it, “Alaska law limits the amount an individual can contribute to a candidate for political office, or to an election-oriented group other than a political party, to $500 per year.” Some Alaska residents filed suit claiming that this limit violated the First Amendment. The Plaintiffs in the case contributed the maximum amounts permitted but wanted to contribute more and challenged the limits under the First Amendment. Previously, the district court and Ninth Circuit Court upheld the Alaska statute as furthering a “sufficiently important state interest” and “closely drawn” to that end. Although the Alaska District Court and Ninth Circuit Court upheld the limit, on November 25, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court found in the process, the Ninth Circuit Court “declined to apply” the Supreme Court’s 2006 campaign-finance decision in Randall v. Sorrell, on the ground that in Randall “no opinion commanded a majority of the Court”. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded Thompson v. Hebdon, citing its precedent in Randall v. Sorrell (2006), which invalidated a Vermont law that limited individual contributions on a per-election basis to $400 to a candidate for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, or other statewide office, $300 to a candidate for state senator, and $200 to a candidate for state representative. In Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (2006), the Supreme Court invalidated a Vermont law that limited individual contributions. In that case, the Supreme Court identified several “danger signs” about Vermont’s law that warranted closer review. Alaska’s limit on campaign contributions were found to share some of those characteristics, specifically the relatively low amounts of the limits and their failure to adjust for inflation. The Supreme Court ruled that a contribution limit that is too low can “prove an obstacle to the very electoral fairness it seeks to promote.” Alaska’s $500 individual-to-candidate contribution limit is substantially lower than limits that have previously been upheld; the individual-to-candidate contribution limit is substantially lower than comparable limits in other states. Alaska’s $500 contribution limit applies uniformly to all offices while other states have limits above $500 for candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor. The lowest campaign contribution limit the Supreme Court has previously upheld remains the limit of $1,075 per two-year election cycle for candidates for Missouri state auditor in 1998 (citing Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000)). According to the Supreme Court finding, that limit adjusted for inflation translates to over $1,600 in today’s dollars. Currently, Alaska permits contributions up to 18 months prior to the general election and thus allows a maximum contribution of $1,000 over a comparable two-year period. (Alaska Stat. §15.13.074(c)(1).) Accordingly, Alaska’s limit is less than two-thirds of the contribution limit the US Supreme Court upheld in Shrink. It was also noted that Alaska’s contribution limit is not adjusted for inflation and is the same as it was 23 years ago. The Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision and remanded Thompson v. Hebdon so the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals could “revisit whether Alaska’s contribution limits are consistent with our First Amendment precedents,” including these Randall factors. The unanimous opinion of the Court was per curiam. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg authored a separate concurring statement noting that Alaska’s law lacks certain features the Supreme Court found troubling in Vermont’s contribution limits in Randall. Background: In 1996, the Alaska legislature responded to a new citizen initiative effort and revised Alaska's 20 year-old campaign disclosure law to include stricter limitation and disclosure measures, including the prohibition of corporate and out-of-state group contributions to state and local candidates. The changes took effect on January 1, 1997. Among other things, the law set a $500 annual contribution limit to candidates for state office ($1,000 over a two-year election cycle), and set aggregate caps on how much each candidate could take from out-of-state donors. In 2003, the Alaska legislature increased the base contribution limits from $500 to $1,000 per year. But in 2006, 73% of Alaskans voted to move the limits back to their earlier $500 level. Alaska has had a history of exploitation by out-of-state energy extraction companies. Alaska relied on those companies and their out-of-state workers for approximately 90% of the state’s budget. Alaska has also experienced its fair share of corruption scandals in the past involving campaign contributions. Several plaintiffs brought a First Amendment case against Alaska’s base contribution limit, its aggregate out-of-state donor limit, and two other types of contribution limits. David Thompson, a Wisconsin resident, wished to donate to his brother-in-law’s campaign for the Alaska State House of Representatives despite the fact that his brother-in-law had already met the $3,000 cap on donations he could take from nonresidents. Aaron Downing and Jim Crawford, meanwhile, wanted to donate more than $500 a year to their favored candidates. The district court upheld the base limits and the nonresident contribution cap, along with the other challenged limits. The plaintiffs appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit. On appeal, the plaintiffs ask the court to reject longstanding precedent upholding contribution limits as constitutional. Instead, they ask the court to adopt a rigorous standard of review, which would eliminate decades of deference courts have granted to legislatures in determining whether to adopt contribution limits and which dollar level to choose. In November 2018, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a split decision in this case. The district court had previously upheld all four provisions. In this decision, the judges upheld all but one of those provisions.
On the Web:
Source of News:
|
||||
