Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-122_k536.pdf
Page Number: 3

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 contribu-
tion 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 elec-
toral 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 char-
acteristics.    First,  Alaska’s  $500  individual-to-candidate 
contribution limit is “substantially lower than . . . the limits 
we have previously upheld.”  Id., at 253.  The lowest cam-
paign 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); Independ-
ence Inst. v. Williams, 812 F. 3d 787, 791 (CA10 2016); Alabama Demo-
cratic  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).