Facts of the Case

Provided by Oyez

Alaska law imposes certain limits on political contributions. Specifically, it limits contributions made by individuals to political candidates, contributions made by individuals to election-related groups, political party-to-candidate contributions, and the total funds a candidate may receive from out-of-state residents.

Three individuals and a division of the Alaska Republican Party challenged these four provisions, arguing that they violate the First Amendment. The district court upheld all four provisions. On appeal, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the individual-to-candidate and individual-to-group limits, as well as the political-party-to-candidate limit. However, it reversed as to the out-of-state resident limit. The court reasoned that the first three limits are narrowly tailored to prevent actual or the appearance of quid pro quo corruption and thus do not impermissibly infringe constitutional rights. In contrast,  the nonresident limit does not target an “important state interest” and therefore violates the First Amendment.

Questions

  1. Does an Alaska law regulating campaign contributions violate the First Amendment?

Conclusions

  1. In a per curiam (unsigned) opinion issued without oral argument, the Court vacated the judgment of the Ninth Circuit below and remanded the case to the appellate court to consider whether Alaska’s political contribution limits are consistent with the Court’s First Amendment precedents.

    The Court noted that the Ninth Circuit, in reaching its decision, did not apply Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (2006), in which the Court invalidated a Vermont law that limited individual contributions. In that case, the Court identified several “danger signs” about Vermont’s law that warranted closer review. Alaska’s limit on campaign contributions shares some of those characteristics, specifically the relatively low amounts of the limits and their failure to adjust for inflation.

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg authored a separate statement noting that Alaska’s law lacks certain features the Court found troubling in Vermont’s contribution limits in Randall.