Cite as: 589 U. S. ____ (2019)
3
Per Curiam
548 U. S., at 248–249; see also id., at 264–265 (Kennedy, J.,
concurring in judgment) (agreeing that Vermont’s contribution limits violated the First Amendment); id., at 265–273
(THOMAS, J., joined by Scalia, J., concurring in judgment)
(agreeing that Vermont’s contribution limits violated the
First Amendment while arguing that such limits should
be subject to strict scrutiny). A contribution limit that is
too low can therefore “prove an obstacle to the very electoral fairness it seeks to promote.” Id., at 249 (plurality
opinion).*
In Randall, we identified several “danger signs” about
Vermont’s law that warranted closer review. Ibid. Alaska’s
limit on campaign contributions shares some of those characteristics. First, Alaska’s $500 individual-to-candidate
contribution limit is “substantially lower than . . . the limits
we have previously upheld.” Id., at 253. The lowest campaign contribution limit this Court has upheld remains the
limit of $1,075 per two-year election cycle for candidates for
Missouri state auditor in 1998. Id., at 251 (citing Nixon v.
Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U. S. 377 (2000)).
That limit translates to over $1,600 in today’s dollars.
——————
*The court below declined to consider Randall “because no opinion
commanded a majority of the Court,” 909 F. 3d, at 1037, n. 5, instead
relying on its own precedent predating Randall by three years. Courts
of Appeals from ten Circuits have, however, correctly looked to Randall
in reviewing campaign finance restrictions. See, e.g., National Org. for
Marriage v. McKee, 649 F. 3d 34, 60–61 (CA1 2011); Ognibene v. Parkes,
671 F. 3d 174, 192 (CA2 2012); Preston v. Leake, 660 F. 3d 726, 739–740
(CA4 2011); Zimmerman v. Austin, 881 F. 3d 378, 387 (CA5 2018);
McNeilly v. Land, 684 F. 3d 611, 617–620 (CA6 2012); Illinois Liberty
PAC v. Madigan, 904 F. 3d 463, 469–470 (CA7 2018); Minnesota Citizens
Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson, 640 F. 3d 304, 319, n. 9 (CA8 2011),
rev’d in part on other grounds, 692 F. 3d 864 (2012) (en banc); Independence Inst. v. Williams, 812 F. 3d 787, 791 (CA10 2016); Alabama Democratic Conference v. Attorney Gen. of Ala., 838 F. 3d 1057, 1069–1070
(CA11 2016); Holmes v. Federal Election Comm’n, 875 F. 3d 1153, 1165
(CADC 2017).