Doug Smith v. Anne Helzer, 95 F.4th 1207

Alaska voters passed Ballot Measure 2 in 2020, enacting campaign finance amendments to address the use of dark money, including disclosure requirements for donors and disclaimers on political ads.
Plaintiffs—five donors and two independent-expenditure organizations—challenged the individual-donor contribution-reporting requirement and the on-ad donor-disclaimer requirement under the First Amendment.
The district court denied a preliminary injunction, finding plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed in showing the requirements were unconstitutional.
The panel on the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the injunction, applying exacting scrutiny to both requirements.
Judge Forrest partially concurred and disagreed as to the individual-donor reporting provision, finding it duplicative and unduly burdensome relative to the state’s interests.
The court preserved the underlying case for merits review but concluded the preliminary injunction was properly denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Individual-donor reporting requirement (First Amendment)	Duplicative of existing reporting; unduly burdensome on donors	Provides accurate, timely info; not overly burdensome; not duplicative	District court did not abuse discretion; requirement survives exacting scrutiny
On-ad donor-disclaimer requirement (First Amendment)	Adds little value; costly; info already online; overly burdensome	Essential for real-time voter info; not unduly burdensome	Requirement substantially related/narrowly tailored; survives exacting scrutiny
Out-of-state donor disclaimer (Discrimination)	Discriminates against out-of-state speakers	Merely requires disclosure, not restriction; info already disclosed	Not discriminatory; only informational, not a speech restriction
Mootness due to post-election passage	Challenged provisions still cause injury; controversy ongoing	Appeal moot since 2022 election passed	Case not moot; ongoing enforcement and self-censorship keep claim alive

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (upheld campaign finance disclosure requirements under First Amendment)
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (approved disclosure/disclaimer requirements for political speech)
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 572 U.S. 185 (2014) (struck down aggregate contribution limits, distinguished from disclosure)
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 141 S. Ct. 2373 (2021) (invalidated blanket donor disclosure, emphasized proportional burdens)
Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010) (exacting scrutiny applies to disclosure laws; must be sufficiently related to state interest)
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (sets standards for preliminary injunction including likelihood of success)
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (privacy in anonymous speech; disclosure can be unconstitutional in some contexts)
Chula Vista Citizens for Jobs & Fair Competition v. Norris, 782 F.3d 520 (9th Cir. 2015) (government has an important interest in electoral integrity and information)
Human Life of Washington Inc. v. Brumsickle, 624 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (disclosure laws constitutional as long as tailored to informational interest)