During the past two weeks a federal judge has been hearing a challenge to the state’s limits on campaign contributions. The complaint alleges that four “statutory provisions unconstitutionally burden and chill Plaintiffs’ free speech and association.” But if that’s true, then what becomes of those freedoms for the many citizens without the financial means to contribute to a candidate’s campaign?
The four plaintiffs in this case have similar stories. They wanted to donate more than the legally defined cap to a particular campaign. Two of them were prohibited from giving more than $500 to either a candidate or political action committee. Another is an Outsider who couldn’t contribute at all to his brother-in-law’s campaign because he’d already collected the $3,000 limit from out-of- state residents. And the fourth was a group who ran up against the $5,000 annual ceiling for group contributions.
The lawsuit seems to have been encouraged by the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (FEC). In that case the Court found the government’s imposed limits on contributions to national parties and federal candidate committees are unconstitutional.
Another important precedent the plaintiffs are relying on regards the state’s need to prevent the exchange of money for political favors. That’s known as quid pro quo. According to the Courts’ infamous Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010, it’s the only situation where the state has a constitutional interest in limiting campaign contributions.
However, the most important doctrine which those cases were founded upon dates back to the court’s 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo. That was the first time the country’s most powerful judges declared that money is a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment.
These legal concepts aren’t as simple as implied in the short paragraphs above. And that may be why U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Burgess is the only one who will consider the arguments presented by the attorneys on this case and the testimony of their witnesses.
That there’s no jury of citizens is unfortunate though. Because it’s our democracy caught in the tug of war between real speech and the kind that can accompany campaign contributions.
Sen. John Coghill, R-Fairbanks, knows a little bit about the pressure some people exert after making large donations. “We gave to you and now we need your help,” Coghill recalled a lobbyist telling him while on the witness stand. “It didn’t work with me,” he added, “and it doesn’t work with most people.”
Former Rep. Eric Croft testified about a similar quid pro quo expectation from an individual who had donated to his campaign. The donor objected to a bill that would raise the taxes on alcohol because it could negatively impact his business. He never gave to Croft’s later campaigns after the Anchorage lawmaker voted in favor of the new tax.
Former Anchorage Assembly member Charles Wolfforth offered a less critical link between money and corruption. In an affidavit he stated he couldn’t understand his own voting decisions whenever confronted by advocacy from important contributors to his campaigns. “Despite my best efforts” he wrote “I cannot with complete confidence say I have never been influenced by campaign contributions.”
Of the three, only Coghill supports raising the limits. But none of their particular stories were about how campaign contribution limits suppressed anyone’s freedom of expression. All three explained how, as public officials, they responded to their donors’ views.
Indeed, no one needs money to express their opinion. We don’t need it to reach elected officials anywhere. Even if we never meet face to face, we can still contact them via letters, email, phone messages or fax. And letters to editors of prominent newspapers often get their attention.
Plus our representatives have a responsibility to listen to our views. Whether we’re working with or without money, they should recognize a sustained passion for our cause more than a $500 or $1000 campaign contribution. But they’re never obligated to agree with us.
So I can’t understand how campaign contributions have become such a critical component of our First Amendment rights. The limits in question only seem to matter to those with enough money to emphasize their positions that way. Or perhaps they’ve limited themselves by believing politicians won’t listen unless they’re handed a check.
Why don’t any prominent judges see it this way. The obvious answer is they know the law much better than I do. But maybe their understanding of how our constitutional democracy should function is also limited. Because like politicians, they live and work in bubbles of wealth which isolate them from the common people.
• Rich Moniak is a Juneau resident and retired civil engineer with more than 25 years of experience working in the public sector.
