SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
A case in Alaska could go to the U.S. Supreme Court and possibly overturn Citizens United. (Photo: Joe Ravi/cc)
'Historic' Alaska Ruling Could Provide Roadmap to Defeating Citizens United
"This decision gives Alaskans and all Americans a chance to revisit those destructive decisions."
Nov 04, 2019
A ruling in a court in Alaska Monday could open the door to imposing more restrictions on super PACs and possibly reversing the infamous 2012 Citizens United by the U.S. Supreme Court that in 2012 upended the nation's campaign finance laws.
Anchorage Superior Court Judge William F. Morse ordered the state to impose limits on donations to political groups in Alaska, saying in the ruling (pdf) that the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), which handles election enforcement, "should reinstate enforcement of the contribution limits at issue." The decision is expected to head to the Alaska Supreme Court.
In a statement, election reform group Equal Citizens founder Lawrence Lessig said that the decision in favor of three Alaskan citizens contesting the unlimited donations was "historic."
"This decision gives Alaskans and all Americans a chance to revisit those destructive decisions," said Lessig, who helped develop the legal strategy for the case. "And it will allow us to continue to make our case that the Framers did not wish to see super PACs. Just the opposite: they would have despised the kind of corruption we have seen recently, and the Constitution gives states the power to eliminate it."
\u201cHUGE NEWS: We just notched a MAJOR victory in our lawsuit in Alaska challenging Super PACs!! The court ruled that Alaska "should reinstate enforcement of the contribution limits." Will likely head to the Alaska Supreme Court. https://t.co/uKM4V1RdWp\u201d— Equal Citizens (@Equal Citizens) 1572907178
Lessig framed the court's decision as a confirmation that Citizens United was just the ultimate symptom of a disease that began at the state and local level.
"It shows what we have known for many years," said Lessig. "Citizens United did not create the super PAC; instead, unlimited donations have flown into independent groups because of incorrect interpretations by lower courts and state elections agencies."
Equal Citizens chief counsel Jason Harrow said that Morse's ruling provides a pathway to the U.S. Supreme Court via appeals. That's an opportunity, Harrow said, that his group has been waiting for.
"The judge's opinion said that 'immediate review' by the Alaska Supreme Court is appropriate in a case of this magnitude," said Harrow. "We look forward to taking the case there and, hopefully, to the U.S. Supreme Court."
Once the case reaches the high court, said Harrow, Equal Citizens believes that there's a good chance at overturning Citizens United.
"We are confident we have a theory that the Constitution does not require the states to get out of the business of curbing unlimited donations to super PACs," said Harrow.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A ruling in a court in Alaska Monday could open the door to imposing more restrictions on super PACs and possibly reversing the infamous 2012 Citizens United by the U.S. Supreme Court that in 2012 upended the nation's campaign finance laws.
Anchorage Superior Court Judge William F. Morse ordered the state to impose limits on donations to political groups in Alaska, saying in the ruling (pdf) that the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), which handles election enforcement, "should reinstate enforcement of the contribution limits at issue." The decision is expected to head to the Alaska Supreme Court.
In a statement, election reform group Equal Citizens founder Lawrence Lessig said that the decision in favor of three Alaskan citizens contesting the unlimited donations was "historic."
"This decision gives Alaskans and all Americans a chance to revisit those destructive decisions," said Lessig, who helped develop the legal strategy for the case. "And it will allow us to continue to make our case that the Framers did not wish to see super PACs. Just the opposite: they would have despised the kind of corruption we have seen recently, and the Constitution gives states the power to eliminate it."
\u201cHUGE NEWS: We just notched a MAJOR victory in our lawsuit in Alaska challenging Super PACs!! The court ruled that Alaska "should reinstate enforcement of the contribution limits." Will likely head to the Alaska Supreme Court. https://t.co/uKM4V1RdWp\u201d— Equal Citizens (@Equal Citizens) 1572907178
Lessig framed the court's decision as a confirmation that Citizens United was just the ultimate symptom of a disease that began at the state and local level.
"It shows what we have known for many years," said Lessig. "Citizens United did not create the super PAC; instead, unlimited donations have flown into independent groups because of incorrect interpretations by lower courts and state elections agencies."
Equal Citizens chief counsel Jason Harrow said that Morse's ruling provides a pathway to the U.S. Supreme Court via appeals. That's an opportunity, Harrow said, that his group has been waiting for.
"The judge's opinion said that 'immediate review' by the Alaska Supreme Court is appropriate in a case of this magnitude," said Harrow. "We look forward to taking the case there and, hopefully, to the U.S. Supreme Court."
Once the case reaches the high court, said Harrow, Equal Citizens believes that there's a good chance at overturning Citizens United.
"We are confident we have a theory that the Constitution does not require the states to get out of the business of curbing unlimited donations to super PACs," said Harrow.
A ruling in a court in Alaska Monday could open the door to imposing more restrictions on super PACs and possibly reversing the infamous 2012 Citizens United by the U.S. Supreme Court that in 2012 upended the nation's campaign finance laws.
Anchorage Superior Court Judge William F. Morse ordered the state to impose limits on donations to political groups in Alaska, saying in the ruling (pdf) that the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), which handles election enforcement, "should reinstate enforcement of the contribution limits at issue." The decision is expected to head to the Alaska Supreme Court.
In a statement, election reform group Equal Citizens founder Lawrence Lessig said that the decision in favor of three Alaskan citizens contesting the unlimited donations was "historic."
"This decision gives Alaskans and all Americans a chance to revisit those destructive decisions," said Lessig, who helped develop the legal strategy for the case. "And it will allow us to continue to make our case that the Framers did not wish to see super PACs. Just the opposite: they would have despised the kind of corruption we have seen recently, and the Constitution gives states the power to eliminate it."
\u201cHUGE NEWS: We just notched a MAJOR victory in our lawsuit in Alaska challenging Super PACs!! The court ruled that Alaska "should reinstate enforcement of the contribution limits." Will likely head to the Alaska Supreme Court. https://t.co/uKM4V1RdWp\u201d— Equal Citizens (@Equal Citizens) 1572907178
Lessig framed the court's decision as a confirmation that Citizens United was just the ultimate symptom of a disease that began at the state and local level.
"It shows what we have known for many years," said Lessig. "Citizens United did not create the super PAC; instead, unlimited donations have flown into independent groups because of incorrect interpretations by lower courts and state elections agencies."
Equal Citizens chief counsel Jason Harrow said that Morse's ruling provides a pathway to the U.S. Supreme Court via appeals. That's an opportunity, Harrow said, that his group has been waiting for.
"The judge's opinion said that 'immediate review' by the Alaska Supreme Court is appropriate in a case of this magnitude," said Harrow. "We look forward to taking the case there and, hopefully, to the U.S. Supreme Court."
Once the case reaches the high court, said Harrow, Equal Citizens believes that there's a good chance at overturning Citizens United.
"We are confident we have a theory that the Constitution does not require the states to get out of the business of curbing unlimited donations to super PACs," said Harrow.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.