Thompson v. Dauphinais

• Decision Date: 07 November 2016
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:15-cv-00218-TMB
• Citation: 217 F.Supp.3d 1023
• Parties: David THOMPSON; Aaron Downing; Jim Crawford; and District 18 of the Alaska Republican Party, Plaintiffs, v. Paul DAUPHINAIS, in his Official Capacity as the Executive Director of the Alaska Public Offices Commission; and Mark Fish, Irene Catalone, Ron King, Kenneth Kirk, and Vance Sanders, in Their Official Capacities as Members of the Alaska Public Offices Commission, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Alaska

217 F.Supp.3d 1023

David THOMPSON; Aaron Downing; Jim Crawford; and District 18 of the Alaska Republican Party, Plaintiffs,

v.Paul DAUPHINAIS, in his Official Capacity as the Executive Director of the Alaska Public Offices Commission; and Mark Fish, Irene Catalone, Ron King, Kenneth Kirk, and Vance Sanders, in Their Official Capacities as Members of the Alaska Public Offices Commission, Defendants.

Case No. 3:15-cv-00218-TMB

United States District Court, D. Alaska.

Signed November 7, 2016

Kevin G. Clarkson, Matthew C. Clarkson, Brena, Bell & Clarkson, P.C., Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiffs.

David T. Jones, Attorney General's Office, John Michael Ptacin, Laura F. Fox, Margaret A. Paton-Walsh, State of Alaska, Department Of Law, Anchorage, AK, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

TIMOTHY M. BURGESS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs David Thompson, Aaron Downing, Jim Crawford, and District 18 of the Alaska Republican Party ("District 18") bring this lawsuit against Defendants Paul Dauphinais, Mark Fish, Irene Catalone, Ron King, Kenneth Kirk, and Vance Sanders (collectively, "Defendants" or "the State") to challenge the constitutionality of four provisions of Alaska's campaign finance laws under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.¹ The Court called this matter for bench trial on April 25, 2016. The parties concluded their arguments and presentations of evidence on May 3, 2016,² and subsequently submitted post-trial briefs.³ Having carefully considered the pleadings, exhibits, trial testimony, arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.⁴

II. BACKGROUND

In 1996, the Alaska Legislature enacted Chapter 48 SLA 1996 for the purpose of "substantially revis[ing] Alaska's campaign finance laws in order to restore the public's trust in the electoral process and to foster good government." Chapter 48 SLA 1996 was based on a ballot initiative drafted by Michael Frank and certified by Lieutenant Governor Fran Ulmer, and established, among other things, $500 annual limits on the amount an individual could contribute to a candidate for state office or to a group that was not a political party, as well as aggregate limits on the dollar amount a candidate could accept from political parties or individuals who were not residents of Alaska. None of the contribution limits were indexed for inflation. Chapter 48 SLA 1996 became effective January 1, 1997.

In 2003, the Alaska Legislature modified Alaska's campaign finance laws by enacting Chapter 108 SLA 2003. Chapter 108 SLA 2003 relaxed some of the campaign contribution limits set by Chapter 48 SLA 1996, including by raising the amount an individual could contribute to a political candidate or group that was not a political party from $500 to $1,000, annually. Chapter 108 SLA 2003 became effective September 14, 2003.

Three years later, 73 percent of Alaska voters voted in favor of Ballot Measure 1, which proposed revising Alaska's campaign finance laws to lower the amount an individual could contribute to a political candidate or group that was not a political party back to $500 per year. The $500 base limits became effective December 17, 2006.

Plaintiffs in this case are individuals and a subdivision of a political party who contributed or attempted to contribute the maximum dollar amount permitted under Alaska's current campaign finance laws, as established by the above session laws and initiatives. Downing is an Alaska resident who, in 2015, contributed $500 to the campaign of mayoral candidate Larry DeVilbiss and to the campaign of state house candidate George Rauscher, the maximum contribution amounts permitted under Alaska Stat. 15.13.070(b). Crawford is an Alaska resident who, in 2015, contributed $500 to the campaign of mayoral candidate Amy Demboski and to the Alaska Miners' Association Political Action Committee, the maximum contribution amounts permitted under Alaska Stat. 15.13.070(b). Thompson is a Wisconsin resident and brother-in-law to Alaska State Representative Wes Keller who, in 2015, attempted to make a $500 contribution to Keller's campaign, but was unable to do so because the campaign had already received the maximum dollar amount it could accept from nonresidents under Alaska Stat. 15.13.072(e)(3). And District 18 is a subdivision of the Alaska Republican Party that was limited to a $250 contribution to Amy Demboski's mayoral campaign, the maximum amount that it was permitted to contribute under the aggregate limit on the dollar amount a campaign can accept from a political party set forth in Alaska Stat. 15.13.070(d)(4).

By this suit, Plaintiffs challenge four distinct parts of Alaska's campaign finance laws under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Each challenged provision is discussed individually below. In relief, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that each of the challenged provisions are unconstitutional, a permanent injunction prohibiting the State from enforcing the challenged provisions, and full reasonable costs and attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. This civil action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

III. ANALYSIS

It is well established that the First Amendment protects political association as well as political expression.⁵ It is equally well established that laws which limit the amount of money a person may give to a candidate or campaign organization intrude upon both of those First Amendment interests,⁶ as a contribution serves both "as a general expression of support for the candidate and his views" and "to affiliate a person with a candidate."⁷ But because "contributions lie closer to the edges than to the core of political expression,"⁸ laws which regulate political contributions, as opposed to political expenditures, are subject to "a lesser but still ‘rigorous standard of review.’ "⁹ Under that standard of review, "state contribution limits will be upheld if (1) there is adequate evidence that the limitation furthers a sufficiently important state interest, and (2) if the limits are ‘closely drawn.’ "¹⁰ The State bears the burden of establishing both prongs of the constitutional inquiry.¹¹

After Citizens United , what constitutes a sufficiently important state interest to support limits on campaign contributions has narrowed. Now, the prevention of quid pro quo corruption, or its appearance, is the only state interest that can support limits on campaign contributions.¹² "That Latin phrase captures the notion of a direct exchange of an official act for money,"¹³ or " ‘dollars for political favors.’ "¹⁴ Campaign finance laws that pursue other objectives, such as reducing the amount of money in politics, restricting the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others, or targeting the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, "impermissibly injects the Government ‘into the debate over who should govern’ " and thus cannot survive constitutional scrutiny.¹⁵

a. Counts One and Two: Individual-to-Candidate and Individual-to-Group Base Limits

Plaintiffs first challenge the provisions of Alaska's campaign finance laws that prohibit an individual from contributing more than $500 per year to a candidate for political office and to a group that is not a political party.¹⁶ They argue that the $500 individual-to-candidate and individual-to-group base limits set forth in Alaska Stat. 15.13.070(b) are not closely drawn to further the sufficiently important state interest of combating quid pro quo corruption or its appearance.

i. Sufficiently important state interest

As part of that argument, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants did not present adequate evidence at trial to establish that Alaska's $500 base limits further the sufficiently important state interest of combating quid pro quo corruption or its appearance. The Court disagrees.

At trial, the State put forward evidence that the risk of quid pro quo corruption or its appearance in Alaska politics and government is both actual and considerable. To start, Dr. Gerald McBeath, a Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Alaska Fairbanks who was qualified as an expert in this case on the topic of Alaska state and local politics and government, identified several factors that make Alaska highly, if not uniquely, vulnerable to corruption in politics and government. The first of these factors is legislative size. Alaska has the second smallest legislature in the United States and the smallest senate, with only twenty senators. As Dr. McBeath explained at trial, that means that just ten votes can stop a legislative action such as an oil or gas tax increase from becoming law. Consequently, the incentive to buy a vote, and the chances of successfully doing so, are therefore higher in Alaska than in states with larger legislative bodies. A second factor is Alaska's almost complete reliance on one industry for a majority of its revenues. The percentage of Alaska's budget generated by royalties, taxes, and revenues from oil and gas is the highest among all of the oil and gas producing states in the United States. In fact, it is exponentially greater: typically 85 to 92 percent in Alaska compared to less than 50 percent for every other state. Another factor making Alaska susceptible to corruption in politics and government is its small population coupled with its vast size. According to Dr. McBeath, these characteristics make enforcement of campaign finance laws much more challenging, as it limits both the number and abilities of watchdog organizations.

In addition to Dr. McBeath's testimony, the public officials who appeared at trial, regardless of whether they were called by Plaintiffs or the State, uniformly testified that they experienced and observed pressure to vote in a...