Skip to content

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Supreme Court says Alaska's cap on political donations is too low

Money and politics

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a lower court erred when it decided Alaska's campaign donation limits were constitutional. The case was sent back to the 9th Circuit with instructions that could result in the appeals court deciding the is too low.

ericsphotography/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday reversed a lower-court ruling that found Alaska's campaign contribution limits are not so low as to be unconstitutional.

But the decision was made in such a way, one expert argues, that the court limited its own ability to undo the restraints governing the influence of campaign donations.

In an unsigned opinion, the court vacated the decision of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a lawsuit brought by an Alaska couple who wanted to contribute more than the annual maximum of $500 per candidate or election-oriented group (other than a political party) allowed under state law. They claimed the limit violated the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruling states the 9th Circuit erred when it decided not to not apply standards the high court set in a 2006 ruling that determined Vermont's campaign finance limits were so low as to be unconstitutional. The court argued that such low limits can "harm the electoral process by preventing challengers from mounting effective campaigns against incumbent officeholders, thereby reducing democratic accountability."

The Alaska limits, the Supreme Court pointed out on Monday, are even lower than those in Vermont. And they are not indexed, meaning they do not go up to match the rise of inflation.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, while agreeing with the court ruling, wrote in a separate statement that even if the 9th Circuit were to apply the Vermont standard to Alaska's contribution limits, that wouldn't necessarily mean it had to conclude they were too low.

That's because, Ginsburg wrote, the Alaska Legislature is the second smallest in the country and the state's economy is dominated by the oil and gas industry. The low limits could be constitutional and necessary to fend off corruption.

Rick Hasen, law professor at the University of California, Irvine and the author of the Election Law blog, wrote that the Supreme Court could have used the case to call into question all campaign contribution limits but decided it in such a way that avoided making a major change in the law.

"The way the state of Alaska lost today is the least bad way it could lose," Hasen wrote.

In a separate lawsuit, an Anchorage judge ruled in early November that the agency overseeing the state's election laws must resume enforcement of the $500 limit on individual donations to political groups. And the judge asked the state Supreme Court to review the entire Alaska law.

The Alaska Public Office Commission had dropped enforcement in 2012 after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United cast doubt on its constitutionality.

Whatever Alaska courts might do, however, would be trumped by the U.S. Supreme Court, which Monday's decision shows is not likely to change its recent decisions on the subject.

Read More

Trump and Biden at the debate

Our political dysfunction was on display during the debate in the simple fact of the binary choice on stage: Trump vs Biden.

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The debate, the political duopoly and the future of American democracy

Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization.

The talk is all about President Joe Biden’s recent debate performance, whether he’ll be replaced at the top of the ticket and what it all means for the very concerning likelihood of another Trump presidency. These are critical questions.

But Donald Trump is also a symptom of broader dysfunction in our political system. That dysfunction has two key sources: a toxic polarization that elevates cultural warfare over policymaking, and a set of rules that protects the major parties from competition and allows them too much control over elections. These rules entrench the major-party duopoly and preclude the emergence of any alternative political leadership, giving polarization in this country its increasingly existential character.

Keep ReadingShow less
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Voters should be able to take the measure of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., since he is poised to win millions of votes in November.

Andrew Lichtenstein/Getty Images

Kennedy should have been in the debate – and states need ranked voting

Richie is co-founder and senior advisor of FairVote.

CNN’s presidential debate coincided with a fresh batch of swing-state snapshots that make one thing perfectly clear: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may be a longshot to be our 47th president and faces his own controversies, yet the 10 percent he’s often achieving in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and other battlegrounds could easily tilt the presidency.

Why did CNN keep him out with impossible-to-meet requirements? The performances, mistruths and misstatements by Joe Biden and Donald Trump would have shocked Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, who managed to debate seven times without any discussion of golf handicaps — a subject better fit for a “Grumpy Old Men” outtake than one of the year’s two scheduled debates.

Keep ReadingShow less
I Voted stickers

Veterans for All Voters advocates for election reforms that enable more people to participate in primaries.

BackyardProduction/Getty Images

Veterans are working to make democracy more representative

Proctor, a Navy veteran, is a volunteer with Veterans for All Voters.

Imagine this: A general election with no negative campaigning and four or five viable candidates (regardless of party affiliation) competing based on their own personal ideas and actions — not simply their level of obstruction or how well they demonize their opponents. In this reformed election process, the candidate with the best ideas and the broadest appeal will win. The result: The exhausted majority will finally be well-represented again.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person voting at a dropbox in Washington, D.C.

A bill moving through Congress would only allow U.S. citizens to vote in D.C. municipal eletions.

Chen Mengtong/China News Service via Getty Images

The battle over noncitizen voting in America's capital

Rogers is the “data wrangler” at BillTrack50. He previously worked on policy in several government departments.

Should you be allowed to vote if you aren’t an American citizen? Or according to the adage ‘No taxation without representation’, if you pay taxes should you get to choose the representatives who help spend those tax dollars? Those questions are at the heart of the debate over a bill to restrict voting to U.S. citizens.

Keep ReadingShow less
people walking through a polling place

Election workers monitor a little-used polling place in Sandy Springs, Ga., during the state's 2022 primary.

Nathan Posner/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

What November election? Half of the U.S. House is already decided.

Troiano is the executive director ofUnite America, a philanthropic venture fund that invests in nonpartisan election reform to foster a more representative and functional government. He’s also the author of “The Primary Solution.”

Last month, Americans were treated to an embarrassing spectacle: Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) tradingpersonal insults related to “fake eyelashes” and a “bleach blonde bad built butch body” during a late-night committee hearing. Some likened it to Bravo’s “Real Housewives” reality TV series, and wondered how it was possible that elected officials could act that way and still be elected to Congress by the voters.

The truth is, the vast majority of us don’t actually elect our House members — not even close. Less than 10 percent of voters in Crockett’s district participated in her 2024 Democratic primary, which all but guaranteed her re-election in the safe blue district. Greene ran unopposed in her GOP primary — meaning she was re-elected without needing to win a single vote. The nearly 600,000 voters in her overwhelmingly red district were denied any meaningful choice. Both contests were decided well before most voters participate in the general election.

Keep ReadingShow less