Alaska Supreme Court considers arguments in case that could shield the ID of some political donors
- Alaska Beacon
- 5 hours ago
- 3 min read
Justices are considering the legality of a major fine against the backers of a 2024 ballot measure and, in the process, may rule on disclosure rules
By James Brooks
Alaska Beacon
The Alaska Supreme Court will decide whether state regulators acted correctly to fine backers of a failed election reform ballot measure more than $94,000 for a variety of alleged campaign finance violations.
In the process, it may determine whether the backers of ballot measures are required to disclose the true source of money donated to ballot measure campaigns.
On Wednesday, the court’s five justices heard oral arguments in an appeal brought by Alaskans for Honest Elections, the Ranked Choice Education Association, Arthur Mathias and Wellspring Ministries.
The four plaintiffs were supporters of a 2024 effort to repeal the state’s system of open primary elections and ranked choice general elections. That effort failed by a narrow margin, but the plaintiffs were accused of a variety of illegal practices during the election, including an alleged attempt to funnel campaign money through a church in Washington state.
An Anchorage Superior Court judge upheld the fines in 2024, and the plaintiffs appealed again to the Alaska Supreme Court.
Former Alaska Attorney General Kevin Clarkson argued the case for Alaskans for Honest Elections, contending that the Alaska Public Offices Commission — which regulates campaign activity — improperly applied state law, incorrectly determined that Mathias made an illegal contribution, and that even if he did break the law, he is protected by the First Amendment.
One of the key issues in the case is whether Alaska’s prohibition against making a political donation in the name of another person applies to ballot measure campaigns as well as candidate campaigns.
In written filings, Clarkson said it does not, and if it did, that would violate the First Amendment. Attorneys representing the Public Offices Commission say the requirement does apply, and that the rule is valid even under the First Amendment.
Intervening in the case on the side of state regulators is Alaskans for Better Elections (ABE), the group that backed a 2020 ballot measure that installed Alaska’s existing elections system and a legal requirement that political candidates reveal the “true source” of the money they receive.
Under state law, ABE argues, a political donor cannot secretly give money to a nonprofit, which then donates in their name. While the donation can take place, the nonprofit must disclose the true source of the money.
Not so, Clarkson said, citing the preface of the 2020 ballot measure.
“It specifically says it’s directed at candidate elections,” he told the justices.
During oral arguments Wednesday, Clarkson acknowledged a large donation by Mathias to the Ranked Choice Education Association, which was formed as a church in Washington state.
The Association did donate money to Alaskans for Honest Elections, which campaigned in 2024, but Mathias’ money was comingled with other money, Clarkson said, and so it is a mistake to claim his money was what went to the campaign group.
Assistant Attorney General Kimber Rogers, representing the Public Offices Commission, said the intent, not the action, is what matters under state law.
“The point is that (Mathias) intended to pass $90,000 through the (Ranked Choice Education) Association to the initiative group. He got the money all comingled in an account, but what’s important is his intentions,” she said.
Repealing Alaska’s system of open primary elections and ranked choice general elections is a top priority of social conservatives and the Alaska Republican Party, which is pursuing a different repeal effort for the 2026 statewide election.
Though Republicans tended to back the 2024 repeal attempt as well, Clarkson’s arguments have gotten a boost from a powerful progressive group, the 907 Initiative.
In a friend-of-the-court brief, the 907 Initiative argues that the state’s disclosure requirements “were only intended to apply to candidate elections” and should not apply to ballot measures. The Initiative also sides with Clarkson’s First Amendment arguments, saying that campaign finance disclosure rules like Alaska’s should be subject to First Amendment analysis “because they directly target political speech.”
No one from the 907 Initiative argued in person at Wednesday’s hearing.
At the conclusion of Wednesday’s arguments, Chief Justice Susan Carney said the court will take the case under advisement and issue a written decision later.
• James Brooks is a longtime Alaska reporter, having previously worked at the Anchorage Daily News, Juneau Empire, Kodiak Mirror and Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. Alaska Beacon is part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.
