ENDING SUPER PAC CORRUPTION
OUR ALASKA CASE COULD CHANGE EVERYTHING
THE LEGAL ARGUMENT
THE LEGAL ARGUMENT
An increasingly important fraction of the United States Supreme Court — the “originalists” — believes it should interpret the Constitution in the way its Framers would have interpreted it.
We believe that we can show that such an approach must reject any constitutional protection for super PACs.
In Citizens United, the Supreme Court held that corporations (and unions and rich people generally) can spend unlimited amounts of money supporting or opposing a political candidate — just as long as they do it “independently” of the candidate’s campaign.
Based on that decision, a lower court held that if the First Amendment meant you could spend unlimited amounts independently, it must also mean you can give unlimited amounts to an independent political action committee.
That decision created the super PAC. And that decision — we believe we can show — is not consistent with the Constitution, at least as an originalist would read it.
Working with citizens in Alaska — where state law gives citizens the right to demand election law be enforced — we want to take this question to the Supreme Court: What would the Framers have said about super PACs? If we can get even just one originalist to agree with us that the Framers would have hated super PACs as much as we do, then with the other four justices who have already indicated they oppose super PACs, we could end super PACs once and for all.
WHY DID WE FILE IN ALASKA?
In 2006, Alaskans voted that individuals can only give a maximum of $500 towards an independent group, and other outside organizations (like unions or advocacy groups) can only donate up to $1000 to any given independent group.
These contribution limits make sense for Alaskans. With its abundant natural resources and small population, Alaska is particularly vulnerable to the corrupting influence of big money in politics. But for several election cycles, the state entity that is tasked with enforcing the aforementioned contribution limits—the Alaska Public Offices Commission, or “APOC”—has refused to enforce them.
The APOC concluded that the limits are unconstitutional under several lower court decisions that struck down similar laws in other states. But no one has yet challenged APOC’s interpretation, one that undermines the will of Alaskans. And the Supreme Court has never weighed in on the constitutionality of these limits, either. So there is ample legal room to press the issue.
If the Supreme Court agrees with us that these limits are constitutional, we can end the influence of super PACs nationwide, and thank these Alaskans for taking up this important fight with us.
WHY DID WE FILE IN ALASKA?
WHY THIS FIGHT IS SO IMPORTANT
IN THE WORDS OF THE COMPLAINANTS
WHY THIS FIGHT IS SO IMPORTANT
IN THE WORDS OF THE COMPLAINANTS
LEARN MORE ABOUT THE CASE
Who filed the lawsuit?
Who are we suing?
The second entity is a left-leaning independent group called Working Families of Alaska. This group supported a wide variety of Democratic and moderate or left-leaning candidates, and accepted over $220,000 in donations in 2016 from two union affiliated groups: Laborers Local 341, and Laborers’ Political Education League.
These entities were not named because of any misconduct or because of any particular political stance they took. Instead, as best we can tell, they both filed their required reports and took and spent money in accordance with what APOC believes is the current law in Alaska. But even though the groups come from opposite sides of the political spectrum, they are united because both groups accepted donations well above the statutory limit (which is $1,000). Thus, we are asking APOC why it did not enforce the existing laws against these two entities.
What's happened in the case so far?
Our appeal is now in Alaska Superior Court, and the judge hearing our case has permitted us to take the unusual but important step of introducing expert testimony on the key issues in the case. So, this October, we will get to tell the court, using the premier experts in the field, what the Framers thought about corruption and how modern campaign finance regulation is consistent with the framers’ vision.”
What happens if we win?
- Complaint – Patrick v. Interior Voters for John Coghill and Working Families, January 31, 2018
- Complaint – Lambert v. Interior Voters for John Coghill and Working Families, January 31, 2018
- Complaint – Barnett v. Interior Voters for John Coghill and Working Families, January 31, 2018
- Case Description Form
- Notice of Appeal – March 30, 2018
- Statement of Point on Appeal – March 30, 2018
- Expert Report of Adam Bonica
– Entered into evidence on October 4, 2018 - Expert Report of Jack Rakove
– Entered into evidence on October 4, 2018 - Brief of Appellants– November 16, 2018
- Brief of Appellee– January 30, 2019
- Reply Brief of Appellants – February 26, 2019
- Superior Court Order – November 4, 2019
The Fulcrum: Alaska case may open door to reversing Citizens United
Advocates of toughening campaign finance regulation are thrilled by a judge's ruling in Alaska this week, which they view as a potential starting point for reversing the Supreme Court decision that opened the floodgate of money into politics this decade.
KTUU: Home Politics Article Anchorage judge orders Alaska campaign contribution limit to be reinstated
An Anchorage judge has ruled that contribution limits should be enforced to independent expenditure groups, the Alaska equivalent of super PACs. The case was brought forward by Equal Citizens, a nonprofit based out of Washington D.C., on behalf of three Alaskans. The...
Common Dreams: ‘Historic’ Alaska Ruling Could Provide Roadmap to Defeating Citizens United
A ruling in a court in Alaska Monday could open the door to imposing more restrictions on super PACs and possibly reversing the infamous 2012 Citizens United by the U.S. Supreme Court that in 2012 upended the nation's campaign finance laws.
Value Walk: Group Wins Landmark Case Against Super PACs in Alaska
HOW YOU CAN HELP
The judge has allowed us to present expert testimony on how the Framers would have understood “corruption” — and how the current practice of super PACs fits that understanding to a t. We estimate that we will need at least $100,000 to cover our costs in this case — including, most importantly, the experts. That’s just a fraction of what we’ve raised before. But we’ve got to ask for your support again.
JOIN THE FIGHT
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This website is shared by EqualCitizens.US and Equal Citizens Foundation. Equal Citizens Foundation is not responsible for any political content on this website. Read our Privacy Policy here.