Let’s reinstate campaign contribution limits in Alaska

By Bruce Botelho

Ballot Measure No. 1 appearing on the Aug. 18 ballot will restore a system of limits on the amount that individuals and groups can contribute to individual campaigns for state and local office, a system that had been in place for a majority of Alaska’s years of statehood, but which was struck down by federal courts in 2021 because the contribution limits were too low and did not account for inflation. In the subsequent three election cycles we’ve seen what unlimited direct contributions look like: a few donors suddenly empowered to give limitless sums. Ballot Measure No. 1 is the citizen-driven effort to curb that excess.

Alaska needs reasonable limits on direct campaign contributions because without them our elections become a contest of checkbooks rather than ideas. Under this proposed law, a person may give a candidate up to $2,000 each election cycle (or up to $4,000 to a governor’s campaign) and up to $5,000 to a political party or group.

This ballot measure has been attacked because it does not apply to donations made to an independent expenditure group (SuperPAC).   Indeed, contributions to IE’s are not included in the proposal.  However, that exception is a result of United States Supreme Court jurisprudence that allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts independently, the operative word being “independent” of a candidate’s campaign.

At the same time, the Court has repeatedly upheld reasonable limits on contributions as a tool to combat corruption or the appearance of corruption. Thus, we cannot constitutionally shut down all SuperPAC spending, but we can and should put guardrails on how much any person or interest group can hand directly to a candidate for governor, legislator, mayor, assembly or school board.

Some argue that contribution limits are intended to punish wealth. No, they are about preserving trust. When a single donor can cut a $50,000 or $100,000 check to a candidate, every subsequent action by the elected official that could affect the donor’s business, development or contract becomes suspect.  Even if the official acts in good faith, many will wonder whether policy is being shaped in the public interest or in gratitude for private money.

For Alaska voters, the practical question on Ballot Measure No. 1 is simple: do you want a system where one or two very wealthy donors can single-handedly fund a campaign, or one where candidates must build broad support? Ballot Measure No. 1 stands for the proposition that the person elected is everyone’s representative, not someone’s investment.

• Bruce Botelho is a former co-chair of Citizens Against Money in Politics, the sponsor of Ballot Measure No. 1. He is also a former Juneau mayor, former Alaska attorney general, and current president of the Juneau Independent’s board of directors. This piece represents Botelho’s personal views and does not represent the views of the Independent.