494 P.3d 53
Alaska2021Background
- In 2012 APOC issued an advisory opinion concluding that Alaska’s statutory contribution limits (AS 15.13.070) were likely unconstitutional as applied to groups that make only independent expenditures.
- In January 2018 Donna Patrick and two others filed complaints alleging two independent‑expenditure groups accepted contributions exceeding statutory limits. APOC staff dismissed the complaints citing the 2012 advisory opinion and AS 15.13.374(e).
- Patrick asked APOC to reconsider; APOC affirmed the dismissal. Patrick appealed to the superior court and presented expert historical evidence contesting the modern quid‑pro‑quo corruption framing.
- The superior court reversed APOC’s dismissal and remanded for reconsideration in light of the Ninth Circuit’s then‑recent decision in Thompson v. Hebdon.
- The Alaska Supreme Court granted review, held that limits on contributions to independent‑expenditure‑only groups are unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s campaign‑finance framework (Buckley/Citizens United/McCutcheon and federal circuit authority), and reversed the superior court.
Issues
| Issue | Patrick's Argument | APOC's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are AS 15.13.070 contribution limits constitutional as applied to independent‑expenditure‑only groups? | Limits are constitutional; the Framers understood "corruption" more broadly ("institutional/structural" corruption), so limits can be upheld. | Limits are unconstitutional under Supreme Court precedent (Citizens United/Buckley) and controlling federal circuit decisions. | Limits are unconstitutional as applied to independent‑expenditure‑only groups. |
| Was APOC required to consider the complaints despite its 2012 advisory opinion and AS 15.13.374(e)? | Patrick sought judicial review of APOC's dismissal. | APOC relied on the advisory opinion and AS 15.13.374(e) to decline consideration. | Superior court erred in reversing APOC’s dismissal; because the advisory opinion was correct, APOC’s dismissal need not be upset. |
| Is APOC authorized to decline enforcement of a statute it deems unconstitutional? | Patrick agreed APOC had such authority. | APOC asserted discretion to refuse enforcement when a law appears unconstitutional. | Court declined to decide the question (parties did not dispute it); left unresolved. |
| Was the Ninth Circuit’s Thompson decision dispositive here? | Superior court relied on Thompson to require reconsideration. | APOC argued Thompson was not dispositive for the as‑applied question; other federal precedents control. | Thompson is not dispositive; other federal circuit precedents and Supreme Court framework show limits are unconstitutional as applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (contribution limits upheld under anti‑corruption interest; different scrutiny for expenditures)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (independent expenditures do not give rise to quid‑pro‑quo corruption)
- McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185 (government may target only quid‑pro‑quo corruption)
- SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir.) (contributions to independent‑expenditure groups cannot be limited on anti‑corruption grounds)
- Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce v. City of Long Beach, 603 F.3d 684 (9th Cir.) (limit on contributions to independent‑expenditure committees unconstitutional as applied)
- Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, 645 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir.) (relied on precedents shielding independent‑expenditure groups from contribution caps)
- N.Y. Progress & Protect. PAC v. Walsh, 733 F.3d 483 (2d Cir.) (consistent circuit holdings against contribution caps on independent‑expenditure groups)
- Wisc. Right to Life State PAC v. Barland, 664 F.3d 139 (7th Cir.) (annual contribution cap unconstitutional as applied to independent‑expenditure committees)
- Republican Party of N.M. v. King, 741 F.3d 1089 (10th Cir.) (committees not affiliated with candidates may receive unlimited contributions for independent expenditures)
- Texans for Free Enterprise v. Texas Ethics Comm’n, 732 F.3d 535 (5th Cir.) (contribution limits incompatible with First Amendment as applied to independent‑expenditure groups)