Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions


Touch N' Go
®, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother.

 

You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. Alaska Public Offices Commission v. Donna Patrick, James K. Barnett, and John P. Lambert (9/3/2021) sp-7551

Alaska Public Offices Commission v. Donna Patrick, James K. Barnett, and John P. Lambert (9/3/2021) sp-7551

           Notice:   This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the P                    ACIFIC  REPORTER.  

           Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,  

                                                                                                                         

           303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email  

                                                                                                                           

           corrections@akcourts.gov.  



                       THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA                                       



ALASKA  PUBLIC  OFFICES                                          )  

COMMISSION,                                                      )     Supreme  Court  No.  S-17649  

                                                                 )  

                                Petitioner,                                                                                       

                                                                 )     Superior Court No. 3AN-18-05726 CI  

                                                                 )  

           v.                                                                              

                                                                 )     O P I N I O N  

                                                                 )  

                 

DONNA PATRICK,                                                                                                   

                                                                 )    No. 7551 - September 3, 2021  

                                               

JAMES K. BARNETT, and                                            )  

                 

JOHN P. LAMBERT,                                                 )  

                                                                 )  

                                Respondents.                     )  

                                                                 )  



                                                                                                                    

                                          

                      Petition for Review from the Superior Court of the State of  

                                                                                              

                      Alaska,            Third          Judicial            District,           Anchorage,  

                                                     

                      William F. Morse, Judge.  



                                                                                                          

                      Appearances: Laura Fox, Senior Assistant Attorney General,  

                                                                                                        

                      Anchorage, and Clyde "Ed" Sniffen, Jr., Acting Attorney  

                                                                                                        

                      General, Juneau, for Petitioner. Jason Harrow and Lawrence  

                                                                                                                

                      Lessig,   Equal   Citizens,   Los   Angeles,   California,   and  

                                                                                                           

                      Elizabeth  Hodes  and  M.  Scott  Broadwell,  Davis  Wright  

                                                                          

                      Tremaine LLP, Anchorage, for Respondents.  



                                                                                                                

                      Before:         Bolger,  Chief  Justice,  Winfree,  Maassen,  and  

                                                                                            

                      Carney, Justices.  [Borghesan, Justice, not participating.]  



                                         

                      CARNEY, Justice.  


----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

I.         INTRODUCTION  



                      In 2012 the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) issued an advisory  

                                                                                                                               



opinion  stating  that  the  contribution  limits  in  Alaska's  campaign  finance  law  are  

                                                                                                                                       



unconstitutional as applied to contributions to independent expenditure groups. In 2018  

                                                                                                                                     



three individuals filed complaints with APOC alleging that independent expenditure  

                                                                                                                         



groups  had  exceeded  Alaska's  contribution  limits.                                  APOC  declined  to  enforce  the  

                                                                                                                                       



contribution  limits based  on its advisory  opinion.                                 The individuals appealed  to  the  

                                                                                                                                       



superior court, which reversed APOC's dismissal of the complaints and ordered APOC  

                                                                                                                                  



to reconsider its advisory opinion in light of a recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals  

                                                                                                                               



decision. APOC appealed, arguing that it should not be required to enforce laws it views  

                                                                                                                                   



as unconstitutional and that its constitutional determination is correct.  Because it was  

                                                                                                                                      



error to reverse APOC's dismissal of the complaints, we reverse the superior court's  

                                                                                                                                 



order.  



II.        FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS  

                                    



           A.         Alaska's Campaign Finance Laws  

                                                                        



                      Alaska's         campaign            finance        laws       distinguish           between          campaign  

                                                                                                                          



contributions - that is, payments to a candidate, political party, or other group for the  

                                                                                                                                        



purpose of influencing an election - and campaign expenditures, which are transactions  

                                                                                                                          

that secure goods or services to influence an election.1                                    For example, an individual's  

                                                                                                                         



payment to a political party would be a contribution; if the party then spent that money  

                                                                                                                                  

on  a  political  advertisement,   the  party's  spending   would  be  an  expenditure.2  

                                                                                                                                              



           1          See  AS 15.13.400(4) (defining "contribution"); AS 15.13.400(7) (defining                               



"expenditure").  



           2          See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 21-23 (1976), superseded by statute on  

                                                                                                                                         

other grounds as stated in McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 120-22 (2003) (contrasting  

                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                      (continued...)  



                                                                    -2-                                                             7551
  


----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

Expenditures can be either coordinated or independent; an "independent expenditure"                                                                            



is one "made without the direct or indirect consultation or cooperation with, or at the                                                                                              



suggestion or the request of, or with the prior consent of, a candidate, a candidate's                                                                            



campaign treasurer or deputy campaign treasurer, or another person acting as a principal                                                                               

                                                        3   At issue in this case is AS 15.13.070, the campaign finance  

or agent of the candidate."                                                                                                                                                 



law that limits campaign contributions to candidates, groups, and parties.  

                                                                                                                                               



                             In  January  2010  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  issued  a  landmark  

                                                                                                                                                                      



decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, striking down restrictions  

                                                                                                                                                                   



on independent expenditures by corporations as an unconstitutional restriction on free  

                                                                                                                



speech and holding that "quid pro quo corruption" is the only form of corruption that  

                                                                                                                                                                                   

could be targeted by campaign finance limits.4                                                        Citizens United did not directly address  

                                                                                                                                                                           

restrictions on contributions to independent expenditure groups.5  

                                                                                                                           



                             In February 2010 Alaska's then-Attorney General Dan Sullivan prepared  

                                                                                                                                                                         



a memorandum analyzing the impact of Citizens United on Alaska campaign finance  

                                                                                                                                                                           



election laws.  The memorandum concluded that Alaska's prohibitions on independent  

                                                                                                                                                                 



expenditures by corporations and labor unions were likely unconstitutional but that its  

                                                                                                                                



laws regulating "contributions to candidates, coordinated expenditures, disclaimers, and  

                                                                                                                                                                                    



disclosures are not directly affected."  

                                                            



              2              (...continued)
  



campaign  expenditures  with  campaign  contributions  in  the  federal  context).
   



              3              AS   15.13.400(11).  



              4              558  U.S.  310,  359,  365  (2010).  



              5              We  use  "independent  expenditure  groups"  to  refer  to  groups  that  make  only  



independent   expenditures.    A   group   that  makes   independent   expenditures   as  well   as  

contributions  is  not  an  independent  expenditure  group.  



                                                                                           -3-                                                                                  7551
  


----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

                    In 2012 APOC issued a unanimous advisory opinion at the request of a  

                                                                                                                                  



group  that  sought  to  "take  in  unlimited  contributions  from  the  public  to  make  

                                                                                                                          



independent expenditures only." APOC's advisory opinion stated that "contributions to  

                                                                                                                                 



[groups] are currently limited by Alaska's campaign finance laws.  However, it appears  

                                                                                                                        



to APOC staff that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC  

                                                                                                                             



haspotentially rendered theserestrictions unconstitutionalas appliedto groupsthat make  

                                                                                                                            



only independent expenditures."  APOC's advisory opinion cited several federal cases  

                                                                                                                            



which had overturned limits on contributions to independent expenditure groups and  

                                                                                                                              



concluded, "APOC Staff recommends that [the group's] proposed contribution activity  

                                                                                                                        



be allowed because the statutory limitation to that activity may be unconstitutional."  

                                                                                                     



          B.        Commission Proceedings  

                                          



                    In January 2018 Donna Patrick, James K. Barnett, and John P. Lambert  

                                                                                                                       



(collectively Patrick) filed identical complaints with APOC against two independent  

                                                                                                                 



expenditure groups.  The complaints alleged that the groups had accepted contributions  

                                                                                                                



from individuals and groups in excess of the limits imposed by AS 15.13.070(b)-(c).  

                                                                                                                                     



Subsection (b)  of  the statute limits contributions from individuals to groups, while  

                                                                                                                           



subsection (c) limits contributions from groups to other groups.  

                                                                                      



                    APOC's   staff   rejected   the   complaints   because   they   "concern[ed]  

                                                                                                     



transactionsand activity described and indistinguishablefromtheactivity in anapproved  

                                                                                                                      



advisory opinion" and cited its 2012 advisory opinion.  Patrick requested that APOC  

                                                                                                                         



review its staff's decision.  

                           



                    APOC considered Patrick's request at its February 2018 meeting.  Patrick  

                                                                                                                         



argued that the advisory opinion was incorrect and should be reconsidered, but APOC's  

                                                                                                                       



staff attorney argued that it was still valid.  In March APOC issued an order affirming  

                                                                                  



the denial of Patrick's complaints.   It cited AS 15.13.374(e)(1)-(2), which prohibits  

                                                                                                                      



                                                               -4-                                                         7551
  


----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

APOC from considering a complaint about activities approved in an advisory opinion,                                                                                                  6  



                                                                                                                                                                    

and concluded that the 2012 advisory opinion prevented it from considering Patrick's  



complaints.  



                                                                

              C.            Administrative Appeal  



                                                                                                                                                                                 

                            Patrick appealed APOC's decision to the superior court, arguing that the  



                                                                                                                                                                         

contribution  limits  were  constitutional  because  the  Framers  of  the  United  States  



                                                                                                                                                                    

Constitution had a broader view of corruption than the quid pro quo corruption identified  



                                                                                                                                                                                 

in Citizens United. The superior court allowed Patrick to present expert testimony on the  



                                                                                                                                                                                

Framers' understanding of corruption, which Patrick argued was key to her position that  



                                                                                                                                                             

the contribution limits in AS 15.13.070 are constitutional as applied to independent  



                                                                                                                                                                                   

expenditure groups.                            The court heard  testimony  from Patrick's  expert witnesses in  



                   

October 2018.  



                                                                                                                                                                                 

                            In November 2019 the superior court reversed APOC's dismissal of the  



                                                                                                                                                                         

complaints and remanded for APOC to consider the complaints in light of a Ninth Circuit  



                                                                       7  

                                                                                                                                                                                 

decision,  Thompson  v.  Hebdon.                                              The  Thompson  court  upheld  Alaska's  limit  on  



                                                                                                                                                                                     8  

                                                                                                                                                                                         

individual contributions to all groups, but the Supreme Court later vacated the decision. 



              6             AS 15.13.374(e) states, in relevant part: "A complaint under AS 15.13.380                                                              



may not be considered about a person involved in a transaction or activity that (1) was                                                                                        

described   in   an   advisory   opinion   approved   under   (d)   of   this   section;   [or]   (2)   is  

indistinguishable from the description of an activity that was approved in an advisory                                                                               

opinion . . . ."         



              7             909 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2018), judgment vacated , 140 S. Ct. 348 (2019).  

                                                                                                                                                                       



              8             Thompson v. Hebdon, 140 S. Ct. at 351 (2019).  

                                                                                                                  



                                                                                         -5-                                                                                 7551
  


----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

On    remand    the    Ninth    Circuit    recently  struck    down    that    contribution    limit    as  

unconstitutional.9  



                      Thesuperior court also "encourage[d]allpartiestoseekimmediatereview,"  

                                                                                                                                 



recommended that we grant review, and declined to rule on the constitutionality of  

                                                                                                                                           



AS 15.13.070.  APOC petitioned for review, which we granted.  We ordered the parties  

                                                                                                                                    



to address both the underlying constitutional issue and APOC's authority to decline to  

                                                                                                                              



enforce a law it deems unconstitutional.  

                                       



                      APOC argues that it was prevented by statute from considering complaints  

                                                                                                                             



concerning activity approved in an advisory opinion, that its advisory opinion holding  

                                                                                                     



AS 15.13.070 unconstitutional as applied was correct, and that it has discretion to refuse  

                                                                                                                                     



to enforce laws it considers unconstitutional. Patrick agrees that APOC had authority to  

                                                                                                                                            



decline to enforce a law it determined was unconstitutional, but argues that the law is  

                                                                                                                                            



constitutional based on a novel originalist interpretation of the Constitution that the  

                                                                                                                                         



Supreme Court has not considered.  

                                        



III.       STANDARD OF REVIEW  

                                          

                      "Constitutionalissuesarequestions oflawsubject to independentreview."10  

                                                                                                                                                



"We . . . substitute our own judgment for" the agency's when deciding questions of law  

                                                                                                                                         



"[w]hen the statutory interpretation does not involve agency expertise, or the agency's  

                                                                                                                                

specialized knowledge and experience would not be particularly probative."11  

                                                                                                           



           9          Thompson v. Hebdon                 , No. 17-35019, 2021 WL 3235775, at *12 (9th Cir.                              



July 30, 2021).     



           10         Eberhart v. Alaska Pub. Offs. Comm'n, 426 P.3d 890, 894 (Alaska 2018)  

                                                                                                                                     

(quoting Patterson v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 347 P.3d 562, 568 (Alaska 2015)).  

                                                                                                                                    



           11         Id. (quoting Studley v. Alaska Pub. Offs. Comm'n, 389 P.3d 18, 22 (Alaska  

                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                        (continued...)  



                                                                     -6-                                                              7551
  


----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

IV.       DISCUSSION  



                    The superior court declined to decide whether Alaska's contribution limit  

                                                                                                                            



is constitutional as applied to independent expenditure groups.  Although neither this  

                                                                                                                             



court nor  the Supreme Court has addressed  the issue,  APOC argues that limits on  

                                                                                                                              



contributions to independent expenditure groups are unconstitutional in light of Citizens  

                                                                                                                       



 United and subsequent federal appellate cases.   Patrick acknowledges that "a line of  

                                                                                                                               



federal appellate cases" has held that limiting such contributions is unconstitutional but  

                                                                                                                              



argues that those "cases were wrongly decided because the courts . . . were not presented  

                                                                                                                     



with evidence about the original understanding of the term 'corruption.' "  We are not  

                                                                             



persuaded by Patrick's argument and hold that AS 15.13.070's limits on contributions  

                                                                                                 



to independent expenditure groups are unconstitutional.  

                                                            



          A.        Thompson v. Hebdon Is Not Dispositive.  

                                                                  



                    The superior court based its decision on the original Ninth Circuit decision  

                                                                                                                      



in Thompson.  But even before Thompson was overturned, the superior court's reliance  

                                                                                                                       



on it was misplaced.  Thompson concerns the constitutionality of Alaska's contribution  

                                                                                                                



limits in general;this caseaddresses theconstitutionality ofthosecontribution limits only  

                                                                                                                            

as applied to independent expenditure groups.12                           There is only partial overlap between  

                                                                                    



          11        (...continued)  



                                                                                                              

2017)). If "the interpretation at issue implicat[ed] agency expertise or the determination  

                                                                                                                          

of fundamental policies within the scope of the agency's statutory functions," we would  

                                                                                                                                    

"give deference to [the] agency's interpretation of a statute so long as it is reasonable."  

                                                                                                                             

Id.  (quoting  Studley,  389  P.3d  at  22).                    In  this  case  the  agency's  expertise  is  not  

implicated.  



          12        2021 WL 3235775, at *3 (describing parties and challenges).  

                                                                                               



                                                               -7-                                                        7551
  


----------------------- Page 8-----------------------

                                                                                                                                   13  

the contribution limits addressed by                        Thompson  and the ones at issue in this case.                              And  



"[a]n   as-applied   [constitutional]   challenge   requires   evaluation   of   the   facts   of   the  

particular case in which the challenge arises."                             14  



                                                                                                                                          

                      More relevant to this case are two other Ninth Circuit cases in which the  



                                                                                                   

court indicated that contribution limits in other states were unconstitutional as applied  

                                                          15   Because the issue in this case is the more precise  

                                                                                                                                    

to independent expenditure groups. 



question  of  the  constitutionality  of  contribution  limits  as  applied  to  independent  

                                                                                                                          



expenditure groups, those cases are more pertinent to our analysis.  Indeed, APOC has  

                                                                                                                                          



raised a concern that if it is required to prosecute Patrick's complaints, it will be placed  

                                                                                                                                     



in the "impossible position" of having "to take an action that the Ninth Circuit has held  

                                                                                                                                        



unconstitutional."  



           B.	        Federal   Precedent   Overwhelmingly   Suggests   That   Limits   On  

                                                                                                                                        

                      Contributions                  To       Independent                 Expenditure                 Groups            Are  

                                                                                                                                     

                      Unconstitutional.  



                      The Supreme Court has yet to address whether limits on contributions to  

                                                                                                                



independent expendituregroups areunconstitutional, but it has createdalegalframework  

                                                                                                                              



           13         This   case   concerns   Alaska's   individual-to-group   and   group-to-group  



contribution limits. Although                    Thompson  addresses the individual-to-group contribution                  

limit,   it   does   not   address   the   group-to-group   contribution   limit.     Id   at   *3   (listing  

challenged provisions).                  



           14         Dapo v. State, Off. of Child.'s Servs., 454 P.3d 171, 180 (Alaska 2019)  

                                                                                                                                     

(alteration in original) (quoting Kyle S. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of  

                                                                                                                                            

Child.'s Servs., 309 P.3d 1262, 1268 (Alaska 2013)).  

                                                                             



           15         See Long Beach Area Chamber of Com. v. City of Long Beach, 603 F.3d  

                                                                                                                                 

684, 698 (9th Cir. 2010); Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, 645 F.3d 1109, 1121 (9th Cir.  

                                                                                                                                         

2011), overruled on other grounds by Bd. of Trs. of Glazing Health & Welfare Tr. v.  

                                                                                                                                            

Chambers, 941 F.3d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir. 2019).  

                                                                       



                                                                     -8-	                                                             7551
  


----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

to analyze the constitutionality of campaign finance laws. In                                                   Buckley v. Valeo               , the Court     



held that a law limiting campaign contributions will be upheld if it furthers a sufficiently                                                 

                                                                                                                            16  but a law limiting  

important state interest and is closely drawn to serve that interest,                                                                               



expenditures must "satisfy the exacting scrutiny applicable to limitations on core First  

                                                                                                                 

Amendment rights of political expression."17   The Court held that preventing corruption  

                                                                                                                                                

and the appearance of corruption is a sufficiently important state interest.18                                                                In Citizens  

                                                                                                                                                    



 United the  Court  clarified  that  the  anti-corruption  interest  identified  in  Buckley  is  

                                                                                                                                                               

"limited to quid pro quo corruption."19                                      The Court struck down a law that prohibited  

                                                                                                                                               



corporate independent expenditures, holding "that independent expenditures . . . do not  

                                                                                                                                                             

give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."20                                                        The Court reiterated this  

                                                                                                                                                            



framework in McCutcheon v. FEC, where it noted that the only legitimate governmental  

                                                                                                                                         



interest it had identified for restricting campaign finances was "preventing corruption or  

                                                                                                                                                               



the appearance of corruption" and emphasized that "Congress may target only a specific  

                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                                             21  

type of corruption - 'quid pro quo' corruption." 

                                                                       



                         Two  rationales  underlie  the  Court's  different  treatment  of  campaign  

                                                                                                                                                



contributions and independent expenditures.  First, the Court has held that contribution  

                                                                                                                                            



limits are a "lesser restraint" on political speech than expenditure limits and therefore  

                                                                                                                                                  



             16          424  U.S.  1,  25  (1976),  superseded  by  statute  on  other  grounds  as  stated  in  



McConnell  v.  FEC,  540  U.S.  93,   120-22  (2003).  



             17          Id.  at  44-45.  



             18          Id.  at  26-29  (plurality  opinion)  (upholding  $1,000  contribution  limit).  



             19          Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 359 (2010).  

                                                                                                           



             20          Id.  at  357.  



             21          572  U.S.   185,  206-07  (2014).  



                                                                               -9-                                                                       7551
  


----------------------- Page 10-----------------------

                                                                                    22  

subject   to   less   exacting   review.                                                    Second,   the   Court   has   reasoned   that,   unlike  



contributions,   independent   expenditures   are   not   prearranged   or   coordinated   with   a  



campaign, which "alleviates the danger that expenditures will be given as a                                                                                                         quid pro quo             

for improper commitments from the candidate."                                                                          23  



                                 APOC argues that Citizens United calls into question the constitutionality  

                                                                                                                                                                              



of limits on contributions to independent expenditure groups because, if independent  

                                                                                                                                                                                       



expenditures themselves do not give rise to corruption or its appearance, it is difficult to  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



argue that contributions to groups that make only independent expenditures give rise to  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



corruption or its appearance.  A number of federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit,  

                                                                                 



have come to the same conclusion. Shortly after Citizens United, the D.C. Circuit Court  

                                                                                                                                                                                                        



of Appeals decided in SpeechNow.org v. FEC that "contributions to groups that make  

                                                                                                                                                                                                        



only independent expenditures . . . cannot corrupt or create the appearance of corruption"  

                                                                                                                                                                                          



and  therefore  "that  the  government  has  no  anti-corruption  interest  in  limiting  

                                                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                24   The Ninth Circuit held that a city  

contributions to an independent expenditure group."                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                              



ordinance prohibiting groups from making independent expenditures if they received  

                                                                                                                                                                                                



contributions above certain amounts was unconstitutional as applied to political action  

                                                                                                                                                                                                       



                 22              Id.  at 197 (noting that expenditure limits are subject to exacting scrutiny                                                                                     



while campaign contributions are subject to "a lesser but still 'rigorous standard of                                                                                                                           

review' "                 (quoting   Buckley, 424 U.S. at 29));                                                         see also Buckley                           , 424 U.S. at 20-21                

(reasoning thatcontributionlimits                                                  areless restrictivethanexpenditurelimitsbecause"[a]                                                                       

contribution serves as a general expression of support for the candidate and his views,                                                                                                      

but does not communicate the underlying basis for the support").                                                                        



                 23              Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 357 (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 47).  

                                                                                                                                                                                             



                 24              599 F.3d 686, 694-95 (D.C. Cir. 2010). Because the D.C. Circuit found no  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                

legitimate government interest, it declined to decide which standard of review to apply,  

                                                                                                                                                                                                       

holding  that  "[n]o  matter  which  standard  of  review  governs  .  .  .  the  limits  on  

                                                                                                                                                                                            

contributions to [an independent expenditure group] cannot stand."  Id. at 696.  

                                                                                                                                                                                        



                                                                                                      -10-                                                                                               7551
  


----------------------- Page 11-----------------------

                                                                                                      25                           26                27            28  

committees that made only independent expenditures.                                                        The Second,                 Fourth,           Fifth, 



                 29                                   30  

                                                                                                                                                                

Seventh,             and Tenth Circuit                    Courts of Appeals have reached similar conclusions. The  



                                                                                                                                          

Second Circuit noted that "few contested legal questions are answered so consistently  



                                                             31  

                                             

by so many courts and judges." 



             25           Long Beach Area Chamber of Com. v. City of Long Beach                                                          , 603 F.3d 684,       



698   (9th   Cir.   2010).     The   Ninth   Circuit   later   relied   on   this   precedent   to   uphold   a  

preliminary injunction against enforcement of a similar law.                                                         Thalheimer v. City of San                  

Diego, 645 F.3d 1109, 1121 (9th Cir. 2011),                                           overruled on other grounds by Bd. of Trs.                                

of Glazing Health & Welfare Tr. v. Chambers                                             , 941 F.3d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir. 2019).                        



             26           See N.Y. Progress &Prot. PAC v. Walsh, 733 F.3d 483, 488 (2d Cir. 2013)  

                                                                                                                                                            

(noting  in  preliminary  injunction  context  that  "[f]ew  contested  legal  questions  are  

                                                                                                                                                                

answered so consistently by so many courts and judges").  

                                                                                               



             27           See N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, 525 F.3d 274, 293 (4th Cir. 2008)  

                                                                                                                                                  

(observing that independent expenditure groups are "furthest removed" from candidates  

                                                                                                                                                   

and political action committees).  

                                       



             28           See Texans for Free Enter. v. Texas Ethics Comm'n, 732 F.3d 535, 537-40  

                                                                                                                                                          

(5th Cir. 2013) (upholding a preliminary injunction on the basis that a law limiting  

                                                                                                                                                       

contributions  to  independent  expenditure  groups  was  "incompatible  with  the  First  

                                                                                                                                                             

Amendment").  



             29           See Wisc. Right to Life State PAC v. Barland, 664 F.3d 139, 155 (7th Cir.  

                                                                                                                                                                

2011)  (holding  $10,000  annual  contribution  cap  unconstitutional  as  applied  to  

                                                                                                                                                                 

independent expenditure committees).  

                                                  



             30           See Republican Party of N.M. v. King, 741 F.3d 1089, 1103 (10th Cir.  

                                                                                                                                                               

2013) (affirming grant of preliminary injunction and holding that political committees  

                                                                                                                                                 

not formally affiliated with a party or candidate "may receive unlimited contributions for  

                                                                                                                                                                  

independent expenditures").  

                                                         



             31           N.Y. Progress & Prot. PAC, 733 F.3d at 488.  

                                                                                                         



                                                                               -11-                                                                          7551
  


----------------------- Page 12-----------------------

                          Although we are not bound by federal circuit court decisions,                                                            32 we agree  



with their reasoning.                     Given the Supreme Court's holding that preventing quid pro quo                                                           



corruption and its appearance is the only legitimate governmental interest for campaign                                                                



finance regulations and its holding that independent expenditures do not give rise to quid                                                                       

                                                                               33   there  is  no  logical  rationale  for  limiting  

pro   quo   corruption   or   its   appearance,                                                                                                          



contributions to independent expenditure groups.   If anything, contributions to such  

                                                                                                                                                                



groups are more  attenuated from the possibility of quid pro quo corruption than the  

                                                                                                                                                                   



expenditures themselves.  There is no logical scenario in which making a contribution  

                                                                                          



to a group that will then make an expenditure is more prone to quid pro quo corruption  

                                                                                                                                                     



than  the  expenditure  itself.                            In  light  of  Citizens  United's  holding  that  independent  

                                                                                                                                                 

expenditures  "do  not  give  rise  to  corruption  or  the  appearance  of  corruption,"34  

                                                                                                                                              



contribution limits to independent expenditure groups would not withstand even the  

                                                                                                                                                                   

lower level of scrutiny applied to contribution limits.35  

                                                                                            



             32           See  Native   Vill.  of  Tununak  v.  State,  Dep't  of  Health  &  Soc.  Servs.,  Off.  of  



Child.'s  Servs.,  334  P.3d   165,   175  (Alaska  2014)  ("We  are  'not  bound  by decisions of  

federal  courts  other  than  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  on  questions  of  federal  law.'  "  

(quoting  Totemoff  v.  State,  905  P.2d  954,  963  (Alaska   1995))).  



             33           Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 357-59 (2010).  

                                                                                                                      



             34           Id.  



             35           See Long Beach Area Chamber of Com. v. City of Long Beach, 603 F.3d  

                                                                                                                                                        

684,  693  (9th  Cir.  2010)  (holding  that  appeal  does  not  turn  on  whether  limit  on  

                                                                                                                                                                    

contributions to independent expenditure groups is classified as contribution limit or  

                                                                                                                                                                     

expenditure limit because statute "does not withstand scrutiny under the constitutional  

                                                                                                                                               

standards applicable to either type of campaign finance regulation").  

                                                                                                              



                                                                                 -12-                                                                           7551
  


----------------------- Page 13-----------------------

                                                                                                                

          C.	       Patrick's Argument Fails Because It Is Based On The Assumption  

                                                                                                    

                    That The U.S. Supreme Court Will Overrule Its Decision.  



                                                                                                                            

                    Patrick does not disputethatfederal courts haveconsistentlyheld that limits  



                                                                                                                         

on contributions to independent expenditure groups areunconstitutional. Patrick instead  



                                                                                                                              

argues that those cases were wrongly decided. Patrick agrees that if the government may  



                                                                                                                              

guard only against quid pro quo corruption, then "Alaska's law would not stand."  But  



                                                                                                                              

Patrick contends that the Supreme Court has never been presented with the argument that  



                                                                                                                                 

the government may permissibly use campaign finance laws to protect against forms of  



                                                                                                                                

corruption other than individual corruption.  As a result, Patrick says, there is still an  



                                                                                                                               

opportunity for the Court to embrace broader conceptions of corruption held by the  



                                                                                                          

Framers of the Constitution, specifically the concept of "institutional corruption."  



                                                                                                                             

                    Patrickassertsthat theFramers originally intended to guard against not only  



                                                                                                                                     

individual  corruption  but  also  "institutional  corruption"  or  "structural  corruption."  



                                                                                                             

Indeed, Patrick argues, "institutional corruption was the most important [consideration]  



                                                                                                                       

. . . as they developed their constitutional design."   Patrick argues that the Framers  



                                                                                                                                    

focused  on  "the  structure  of  incentives  allowed  to  evolve  within  institutions  .  .  .  .  



                                                                                                                       

[because i]nstitutional corruption occurs when those incentives undermine the intended  



                                                                                                                                

manner in which those institutions were meant to function."   And Patrick points to  



empirical evidence that unregulated campaign finance leads to institutional corruption  



                                                                                                                                

by making politicians dependent on, and therefore responsive to, a small number of  



                                                                     

major donors rather than the population as a whole.  



                                                                                                                    

                    Patrick  then  posits  that  those  justices  who  subscribe  to  an  originalist  



                                                                                                                         

interpretation of the Constitution should adopt a more limited understanding of judges'  



                                                                                                                           

roles in protecting First Amendment rights because protecting First Amendment rights  



                                                                                   

was originally viewed as the province of legislators.  Although Patrick acknowledges  



                                                              -13-	                                                        7551
  


----------------------- Page 14-----------------------

that       modern            First        Amendment                   jurisprudence                 does        not       reflect         an      originalist  



understanding,   Patrick   believes   the   originalists   on   the   Court   should   nonetheless  



"constrain judicial discretion by fixing the meaning of the First Amendment doctrine to                                                                            



an original understanding of the concepts deployed."                              

                                                                                                                                           36  arguing that  

                          Patrick compares this case to                          District of Columbia v. Heller                           ,                     



in that case "the Court remade the scope of the Second Amendment" contrary to an  

                                                                                                                                                                  



earlier decision because the government's brief in the earlier decision "provided scant  

                                                                                                                       

discussion of the history of the Second Amendment"37 and "presented . . . no counter- 

                                                                                                                                         

discussion."38               Patrick argues that the Court could similarly revise its understanding of  

                                                                                                                                                                   



the Constitution in this case in light of historical evidence not previously brought to its  

                                                                                                                                                                  



attention.  



                          Patrick's historical argument may be particularly apt in Alaska, which "has  

                                                                                                                                                               



the second smallest legislature in the country and derives approximately 90 percent of  

                                                                                         

                                                                                39  making the state "highly, if not uniquely,  

its revenues from one economic sector,"                                                                                                             

                                                                 

                                                                                                       40   Patrick's argument essentially  

vulnerable to corruption in politics and government."                                                                          

                                                                             



asks us to ignore Supreme Court precedent in the hope that the Court will reverse itself.  

                                                                                                                                                                        



             36           554  U.S.  570  (2008).  



             37          Id.  at  623-24.  



             38          Id.  at  624.   



             39           Thompson   v.   Hebdon,   140   S.   Ct.   348,   351-52   (2019)   (Ginsburg,   J.,  



concurring).  



             40          Id.  at  352  (quoting  Thompson  v.  Dauphinais,  217  F.  Supp.  3d   1023,   1029  



(D.  Alaska  2016)).   



                                                                               -14-                                                                          7551
  


----------------------- Page 15-----------------------

                       But the Court has clearly held that "while preventing corruption or its                                                   



appearance   is   a   legitimate   objective,   Congress   may  target  only   a   specific   type   of  

                                                                           41    Similarly, "because the Government's  

corruption - '             quid pro quo            '  corruption."                                                          



interest in preventing the appearance of corruption is equally confined to the appearance  

                                                                                                                                  



of quid pro quo corruption, the Government may not seek to limit the appearance of  

                                                                                                                                                  

mere influence or access."42                      And "independent expenditures, including those made by  

                                                                                                                                                 

corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."43   Patrick's  

                                                                                                                                      



argument that corruption should be defined more broadly than quid pro quo corruption  

                                                                                                                                   

is  not  new.44            The  dissent  in  McCutcheon  v.  FEC  made  historical  and  structural  

                                                                                                                                    

arguments for a broader view of corruption,45  and the plurality specifically rejected that  

                                                                                                                                               

approach.46  



            41         McCutcheon  v.  FEC,  572  U.S.   185,  207  (plurality  opinion)  (2014).  



            42         Id.  at  208.  



            43         Citizens   United,  558  U.S.  at  357.  



            44         See,   e.g.,   McCutcheon,   572   U.S.   at   235   (Breyer,  J.,  dissenting)   ("The  



plurality's   first   claim   -   that   large   aggregate   contributions   do   not   'give   rise'   to  

'corruption'   -   is   plausible   only   because   the   plurality   defines    'corruption'   too  

narrowly.").  



            45         Id. at 236-37 (discussing structural concerns of the Framers and arguing  

                                                                                                                                        

that "the First Amendment advances not only the individual's right to engage in political  

                                                                                                                                        

speech, but also the public's interest in preserving a democratic order in which collective  

                                                                                                                                     

speech matters" (emphasis in original)).  

                                                     



            46         See  id.  at  208  (plurality  opinion)  ("The  dissent  advocates  a  broader  

                                                                                                                                       

conception of corruption . . . .").  

                                                   



                                                                       -15-                                                                 7551
  


----------------------- Page 16-----------------------

                            While it is conceivable that the Supreme Court could overrule                                                                          Citizens  



 United   in light of Patrick's historical analysis, we are bound by the Court's current                                                                             



interpretation   of   the   federal   Constitution.     We   will   not   rule   otherwise   based   on   a  

                                                                                              47     Because the logic of Supreme Court  

prediction that the Court will reverse itself.                                                                                                                          



precedent requires us to concludethatlimits on contributions to independent expenditure  

                                                                                                                                                            



groups are unconstitutional, AS 15.13.070's contribution limits are unconstitutional as  

                                                                                                                                                                                

applied to contributions to independent expenditure groups.48  

                                                                                                              



              V.            CONCLUSION  



                            The superior court's decision is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED  

                                                                                                                                                       



for proceedings consistent with this opinion.  

                                                                            



              47            See Fam. Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. Daniel                                       , 79 F. Supp. 62, 69 (E.D.S.C. 1948),                          



rev'd on other grounds                           , 336 U.S. 220 (1949) ("We are firmly of the opinion that if the                                                             

decisions of the Supreme Court are to be reversed, that function should be reserved to  

                                         

the Supreme Court itself.").  



              48            Because  the  2012  advisory  opinion  was  correct,  we  need  not  address  

                                                                                                                                                                    

APOC's argument that it was bound by the advisory opinion due to the "safe harbor"  

                                                                                                                                                                    

provisions in AS 15.13.374(e)(2). And Patrick does not challenge APOC's authority to  

                                                                                                                                                                                 

decline to enforce a law it deemed unconstitutional.  Because the parties do not dispute  

                                                                                                                                                                      

that issue, we decline to decide it. See Clark v. Mun. of Anchorage, 777 P.2d 1159, 1161  

                                                                                                                                                                          

n.3 (Alaska 1989) (declining to decide whether compromise and release was governed  

                                                                                                                                                                 

by same rules governing "simple release[s] of tort liability" when parties agreed that it  

                                                                                                                                                                                 

was).  



                                                                                      -16-                                                                                7551
  

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules
Constitutions
Miscellaneous


IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights
Soteria-alaska
Choices
AWAIC