Big Bucks. Bad Idea.
The Alaska Public Offices Commission got handed a tough situation. Nine days ago they looked hard at it and made a bad decision.
A divided federal court said Alaska's voter-passed campaign contribution limits (most notably the $500 per individual cap) are unconstitutional. So the staff read the judges' ruling and made some well-thought-out recommendations that would inflation adjust our limits and meet the court’s standards.
The commissioners rejected that. So now it’s the wild west. We’ve got no rules and no clear path to fix it. After some initial noncommittal statements, the governor publicly opposes campaign contribution limits. That's going to make it hard to get the votes in the legislature to pass new, sane rules.
So what's this all about? I disagree with the US Supreme Court's ruling that money is the same as speech when it comes to campaigns. Wealthy Americans have the right to buy more boats and houses and land, but not more democracy.
Still, it's the law. But the high court never even suggested that means there can be no limits at all. Federal campaign contribution limits have withstood court challenges, after all. So while I can argue all day about the damage we do by letting big money interests push their agendas over ordinary Alaskans, we need to look at what the Court allows.
One of the very few reasons the Supremes will let a state cap campaign contributions is the risk of corruption. Let's think that one through: Successful campaigns for the Alaska State Legislature usually cost in the $40-140,000 range. (There are exceptions.) That's a lot of $500 checks. And most candidates raise their money from much smaller donations than that. With a low cap, nobody trades their donation for extra influence. Now imagine someone approached candidates for the legislature saying they had $100,000 checks for those who agreed with them on an issue. How many candidates would hang up the phone? Especially knowing the donor's next call would be to their opponent?
There's no magic line here where on one side, honest people stay honest and other they go bent. If the limit goes to $1,500, it's a tiny bit harder to tell a would-be donor to take a hike. But a good campaigner can make up that amount on shoe leather and phone calls. The higher the ceiling goes, the tougher it gets to win a campaign without courting "conditional" money. You don't have to allow six figure checks to see the risk.
History is replete with examples of people who compromised a principle or two over here so they could accomplish a goal over there. It seldom ends well for the public. Campaign contribution limits lower the risk of that stuff starting.
Most public servants come into this work with the best intentions—to do right for their constituents and communities. If we allow massive, unlimited contributions, Alaska opens the door to buying the people’s representatives. That’s just begging for trouble.
