***The Iowa Standard is an independent media voice. We rely on the financial support of our readers to exist. Please consider a one-time sign of support or becoming a monthly supporter at $5, $10/month - whatever you think we're worth! If you’ve ever used the phrase “Fake News” — now YOU can actually DO something about it! You can also support us on PayPal at [email protected] or Venmo at Iowa-Standard-2018 or through the mail at: PO Box 112 Sioux Center, IA 51250

The largest state in the country has the nation’s lowest limits on donations to statewide candidates. In an amicus brief filed (Monday), the Institute for Free Speech asked the Supreme Court to hear a case challenging those limits as unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The brief says the Court should overturn its 2006 ruling in Randall v. Sorrell and implement a clearer standard for evaluating campaign finance laws.

“The right to support candidates is protected by the First Amendment. Yet the Court’s principal case, Randall v. Sorrell, is a one-off decision that provides little useful guidance. The Court now has a chance to bring clarity to the law while addressing the fundamental question of whether any limit on campaign contributions is simply too low,” said Institute for Free Speech Legal Director Allen Dickerson.

The case, Thompson v. Hebdon, challenges Alaska’s $500 per election cycle limit on contributions from individuals to legislative and gubernatorial candidates. It also challenges the state’s $500 per cycle limit on giving to groups other than political parties.

The plaintiffs, a group of Alaska voters, assert that these low limits are not necessary to prevent corruption and violate their First Amendment right to support the candidates of their choice. They are represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement and attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom.

In Randall v. Sorrell, the Supreme Court struck down Vermont’s contribution limits for being too low. That decision, however, relied on a complex two-step, five-factor analysis that lower courts struggle to apply consistently.

A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Alaska’s limits in November, saying previous rulings in that circuit compelled its decision. However, Supreme Court rulings suggest limits should be held to a higher level of scrutiny. Other appellate courts have also applied more rigorous scrutiny to campaign finance laws.

“The standard of review applied to laws such as Alaska’s should be consistent nationwide. Certiorari ought to be granted to resolve this confusion and bind the lower courts to a single judicial standard,” reads the Institute’s brief.

To read the Institute’s brief, click here. To read the Ninth Circuit’s decision, click here.

Author: Press Release