Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court judgment rejecting a First Amendment challenge to Alaska campaign-contribution limits. The court upheld limits on individual contributions to candidates and election-related groups and on political-party contributions to candidates, but held that Alaska’s aggregate limit on contributions candidates could accept from nonresidents violated the First Amendment. The case was remanded for entry of a judgment consistent with the opinion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Alaska's $500 annual limit on individual contributions to candidates violates the First Amendment.
- Whether Alaska's $500 annual limit on individual contributions to nonpolitical-party groups violates the First Amendment.
- Whether Alaska's limit on political-party contributions to candidates, including aggregation of party subdivisions, violates the First Amendment.
- Whether Alaska's annual aggregate limit on contributions a candidate may accept from nonresidents violates the First Amendment.
Holdings
- Alaska's $500 annual limit on individual contributions to candidates is constitutional because it is closely drawn to serve the important state interest of preventing actual or apparent quid pro quo corruption.
- Alaska's $500 annual limit on individual contributions to nonpolitical-party groups is constitutional because it serves the valid anticircumvention interest of preventing contributors from evading the individual-to-candidate limit through intermediary groups.
- Alaska's limit on political-party contributions to candidates, including its aggregation of political-party subdivisions, is constitutional.
- Alaska's $3,000 annual aggregate limit on contributions a candidate may accept from nonresidents violates the First Amendment.
Key quotations
“Campaign contribution limits rise or fall on whether they target quid pro quo corruption or its appearance.” (at 1029)
“The bottom line is this: After Buckley and Shrink Missouri, state campaign contribution limits will be upheld if (1) there is adequate evidence that the limitation furthers a sufficiently important state interest, and (2) if the limits are “closely drawn”—i.e., if they (a) focus narrowly on the state’s interest, (b) leave the contributor free to affiliate with a candidate, and (c) allow the candidate to amass sufficient resources to wage an effective campaign.” (at 1034)
“Since Citizens United and McCutcheon, preventing “undue influence” is no longer a legitimate basis for restricting contributions under the First Amendment.” (at 1048)
Factual background
Alaska's 2006 campaign-finance initiative reinstated a $500 annual limit on individual contributions to candidates and imposed a $500 limit on individual contributions to nonpolitical-party groups. It also limited political-party contributions to candidates and barred candidates from accepting more than $3,000 annually from nonresidents. The plaintiffs were Alaska residents seeking to contribute more than the individual limits, an Alaska Republican Party subdivision constrained in contributing to a mayoral campaign, and a Wisconsin resident whose $100 contribution was rejected because the candidate had reached the nonresident cap.
Procedural history
The district court granted partial summary judgment against some claims for lack of standing, then conducted a seven-day bench trial. It upheld the challenged individual-to-candidate, individual-to-group, political-party-to-candidate, and nonresident aggregate contribution limits. The Ninth Circuit affirmed as to the first three restrictions, reversed as to the nonresident aggregate limit, and remanded for entry of judgment consistent with its opinion.
Remand instructions
Remand for entry of judgment consistent with the opinion, including judgment invalidating the nonresident aggregate contribution limit. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.