614 F.Supp.3d 668
D. Alaska2022Background
- Ballot Measure 2 (adopted Nov. 3, 2020; law effective Feb. 28, 2021) amended Alaska campaign‑finance law to: (1) require individual donors to report contributions over $2,000 within 24 hours to entities that have made or are likely to make independent expenditures; (2) require on‑ad disclaimers (sponsor, top‑three donors, and an out‑of‑state majority statement where applicable); and (3) define and regulate “dark money,” requiring recipient entities to report the “true source” and intermediaries for contributions over $2,000.
- APOC adopted implementing regulations in June 2021; plaintiffs sued in April 2022 and moved for a preliminary injunction challenging multiple Measure 2 provisions as violating the First Amendment.
- The court applied Winter v. NRDC’s four‑factor preliminary‑injunction framework and, for the First Amendment challenges, used exacting scrutiny (not strict scrutiny) for most disclosure/disclaimer rules.
- Plaintiffs advanced facial challenges to: (Count I) donor 24‑hour reporting by contributors; (Count II) on‑ad disclaimers (top‑three and out‑of‑state); and (Count III) recipient “true source” (dark money) reporting.
- The court found the State’s informational and anti‑corruption interests sufficiently important and concluded the challenged provisions were substantially related and narrowly tailored under exacting scrutiny. It denied the preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Donor 24‑hour reporting to state (Count I) | Compels donors to report within 24 hours; duplicative because recipients already report; unduly burdensome and overbroad temporally | Serves important informational interest; complements recipient reporting by tracing true sources and intermediaries; online form is not burdensome; temporal reach prevents gaming | Denied relief — requirement survives exacting scrutiny as not unduly burdensome or impermissibly duplicative and is narrowly tailored |
| On‑ad top‑three donor disclaimer (Count II) | Compels speakers to convey donors’ identities; redundant with public filings; chills speech and privacy; disfavors message | Advances voter information and prevents misleading speaker names; on‑ad disclosure is more efficient than searching public records; burden is modest | Denied relief — top‑three disclaimer substantially related to informational interest and narrowly tailored under exacting scrutiny |
| On‑ad out‑of‑state majority disclaimer (Count II) | Discriminates against nonresidents; proxy (principal place of business) is imperfect; redundant | Informational interest justifies on‑ad notice where names may mislead; disclosure (not a ban) is a minimal burden | Denied relief — out‑of‑state disclaimer upheld as substantially related and sufficiently tailored |
| True‑source / "dark money" recipient reporting & intermediary tracing (Count III) | Compels disclosure of information recipients may not have; forces tracking of upstream donors and chills association; overbroad | State and voters need to know actual funders influencing elections; no constitutional right to supply ‘‘dark money’’ anonymity | Denied relief — true‑source and intermediary reporting survive exacting scrutiny as substantially related and narrowly tailored |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (four‑factor standard for preliminary injunctions)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (upholding disclaimer/disclosure regime under exacting scrutiny; informational interest of electorate)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (disclosure serves informational and anti‑corruption interests)
- Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 141 S. Ct. 2373 (2021) (addressing donor‑list disclosure and privacy concerns; used in parties’ arguments)
- Nat’l Inst. of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018) (compelled‑speech framework cited by plaintiffs for on‑ad compelled messages)
- Gaspee Project v. Mederos, 13 F.4th 79 (1st Cir. 2021) (upholding on‑ad donor disclaimers as non‑duplicative and informative)
- Chula Vista Citizens for Jobs & Fair Competition v. Norris, 782 F.3d 520 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (applies Citizens United to disclaimers; endorses exacting scrutiny for political disclaimers)