The Thompson v. Hebdon lawsuit challenges Alaska’s limits on out
A little-known court battle in Alaska could be the next big money-in-politics controversy. Thompson v. Hebdonconcerns the state’s campaign finance laws, which are some of the most stringent and progressive in the country. One of Alaska’s most contentious provisions caps the amount of money that state-level candidates can receive from out-of-state donors and is now part of a lawsuit that will soon go before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after a lower court upheld the restrictions.
The challenger to the law is David Thompson, who in 2015 donated $100 to support the re-election of his brother-in-law, former Republican Alaska state Rep. Wes Keller. Thompson lives in Wisconsin, and Keller had already reached the limit for out-of-state contributions, so the campaign had to return the money. Thompson’s lawyers are aping the arguments in Citizens United, contending that this limit on campaign contributions is an unconstitutional regulation of free speech. Thompson told the Alaska Dispatch News, “I thought it was pretty restrictive and it held up my ability to speak out.”
Attorneys for Alaska are citing as precedent Bluman v. FEC, a 2012 Supreme Court case ruling that foreign citizens do not have the right to contribute money to U.S. elections. The state’s attorneys wrote in their brief, “Just as a Canadian citizen is not part of the political community governed by the U.S. federal government, a Florida resident is not part of the political community governed by the Alaska state government.” Advocacy group Free Speech for People, which filed an amicus brief supporting Alaska in July, points out that the state has long been suspicious of out-of-state actors interfering in its politics. The Alaskan tundra is often the target of companies seeking to tap its natural resources and to influence local elections—presumably for extraction privileges.
Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementAlthough the decision on Thompson v. Hebdonwould only directly affect Alaska’s state-level elections, the legal rationale behind these limits, if upheld in court, could be of consequence for elections in other states, including congressional races. A state’s election laws must abide by the Constitution, so if a federal court decides that a state is not hindering the First Amendment by limiting outside donations, then any future laws imposing similar restrictions on congressional races would also likely be consistent with the Constitution. George Washington University professor David Fontana, whose work was the basis of Free Speech for People’s amicus brief, wrote in an email, “If our argument is accepted, the reason why it would have broader implications is because it would be a federal court interpreting federal constitutional law, and federal constitutional law is relevant everywhere and in every election.”
AdvertisementOutside donors are crucial players in congressional elections. About 100 members of the U.S. House of Representatives in every election from 2006 to 2012 received at least a third of their war chests from out-of-district donors, according to research from Santa Clara University political scientist Anne Baker. Her analysis further suggests that the more money representatives receive from out-of-district donors, the less aligned those representatives are with the political leanings of their constituents. Congress members who receive more money from out-of-district donors also tend to be more ideologically extreme than other representatives, which could be contributing to polarization in modern politics. Though the Alaska provision in question only restricts out-of-state donors, these findings about out-of-district influence nevertheless elucidate the state’s concerns.
Advertisement AdvertisementThe influence of these outside contributions also dramatically concentrates power in certain cities. Fontana through his research found that donors in 5 percent of the United States’ ZIP codes contribute more than three times as much to federal elections than the rest of the country combined. He hopes that the Alaska case will push both conservative and liberal states to follow suit. “If a federal court says this is acceptable law, then it would have potential to motivate other states to do the same,” Fontana said. Only Alaska and Hawaii currently impose limits on out-of-state contributions.
AdvertisementOregon and Vermont have both attempted to enforce bans on outside money in the past. Both were struck down. In 1998, the 9thCircuit Court found in Vannatta v. Millerthat Oregon’s prohibition of out-of-district donations was not narrowly tailored to prevent the corruption that the law was attempting to prevent. In 2000, the 2ndCircuit Court of Appeals ruled in Landell v. Sorrellthat Vermont’s regulations, which allowed only 25 percent of a candidate’s total contributions to come from outside the state, were also not appropriately tailored to address corruption. Fontana asserts, however, that Thompson v. Hebdonis different from those two cases because the attorneys are justifying the restrictions on the basis of state’s rights, rather than corruption prevention. Protecting those rights is even more important now as the amount of out-of-state contributions has increased since those decisions were handed down. He believes that this is a rare bipartisan issue, because it combines conservatives’ desire to promote federalism with liberals’ desire to cap campaign contributions.
Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementIn fact, Republicans recently lamented the influence of outside donors in the much-hyped special election for Georgia’s 6thDistrict in June. Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff outraised GOP candidate Karen Handel by millions of dollars, yet only 14 percent of contributions to his campaign came from Georgia. The rest came from donors in liberal states. Handel got 56 percent of her campaign funds from within Georgia. (Ossoff lost.) Handel told Fox & Friends, “[Voters] are not interested in Hollywood and California coming in and buying this seat.” Alaska, it seems, isn’t interested in BP and Exxon buying its seats, either.
Tweet Share Share Comment- ·9 Planetariums to Get Lost in the Cosmos
- ·电视剧《警察荣誉》在青岛西海岸新区热拍
- ·骞冲畨浜哄鍙戝竷2022鐞嗚禂骞存姤锛氭€昏禂浠橀398浜匡紝閲嶇柧璧斾粯閲戦鍗犳嵁鍗婂姹熷北
- ·青岛即墨鳌山港码头项目码头工程施工完成
- ·味道真系正!怀集食材邂逅顺德厨艺
- ·市南区“N+书坊”阅读主题活动——首期“光影市南”影视分享会在中国电影院举办
- ·提高法治文化素养 增强学法用法意识
- ·“红马甲”绘就民族团结“同心圆”
- ·Who is the Dark Wizard in 'The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power' Season 2?
- ·青岛市青年书法家协会四届四次主席团会议召开
- ·青岛平度“新河草编”获批地理标志证明商标
- ·鈥滃缓璁句汉姘戞弧鎰忛摱琛屸€濈郴鍒楁姤閬撯€斺€旈潚宀涘伐琛岋細鏂版槬鏈嶅姟鏈夋俯搴 璐d换瀹堟姢瀹夊績骞確涓浗灞变笢缃慱闈掑矝
- ·Best tablet deals as of August 27
- ·闈掑矝瑗挎捣宀告柊鍖猴細鈥滄垜鍜屾垜鐨勬柊鍖衡€濊壓鏈璁胯皥鐣呬韩鑹烘湳浜虹敓
- ·2023年全市数字经济总量超400亿元
- ·财富、健康双重守护,平安人寿盛世金越尊享终身寿险传递金融温度
- ·Police bust crypto scammer who received plastic surgery to evade arrest
- ·骞冲畨浜哄鍙戝竷2022鐞嗚禂骞存姤锛氭€昏禂浠橀398浜匡紝閲嶇柧璧斾粯閲戦鍗犳嵁鍗婂姹熷北
- ·“益”起向未来!《2022公益春晚暨语言艺术颁奖盛典》与时代同奋进
- ·“红马甲”绘就民族团结“同心圆”
- ·The Wonderful World of Christmas Trees
- ·广东10人入选!首批乡村工匠名师拟认定名单出炉
- ·鍏嶈垂瑙傜湅锛岀煡鍚嶄箰闃熺洏灏艰タ鏋楃瓑鍦ㄩ噾娌欐哗鍟ら厭鍩庡紑婕擾涓浗灞变笢缃慱闈掑矝
- ·青岛市南文化惠民:楼宇大厅也能秒变音乐现场 “青文驿”走进海航万邦
- ·NASA rover snaps photo of its most daunting challenge yet
- ·“红马甲”绘就民族团结“同心圆”
- ·Keurig K Mini deal — get $30 off at Target
- ·筑牢交通防疫线,健康出行有保障 西海岸新区交通部门严格落实疫情防控各项措施,织密织牢防控网络
- ·青岛市市南区科技型中小企业申报工作启动
- ·黄盒子开放展在青岛西海岸新区开幕
- ·Trump trials: Jack Smith is reportedly reconsidering his strategy.
- ·青岛湛山街道秀湛路社区弘扬非遗文化 巧手剪纸迎国庆
- ·“平度记忆” 曲刚镜头里的青岛平度四十年纪实摄影展开幕
- ·2023年全市数字经济总量超400亿元
- ·17 Places That Harness the Power of the Sun
- ·闈掑矝瑗挎捣宀告柊鍖猴細鈥滄垜鍜屾垜鐨勬柊鍖衡€濊壓鏈璁胯皥鐣呬韩鑹烘湳浜虹敓