Thread by @AK_cases_bot

Happening now: Oral Arguments in APOC v. Patrick #aklaw

https://twitter.com/AK_cases_bot/status/1351947792663552002

AAG Fox's opening: "APOC is just trying to follow the law."

"[Plaintiffs] haven't tried to distinguish these cases" that hold the campaign contribution limits are unconstitutional.

J. Carney: What if our statute is different [from other statutes that have been ruled unconstitutional by fed courts]?

Fox: AK statute doesn't treat the subject groups differently than statutes in other cases. No difference among the statutes. APOC is bound by fed case law.

Fox: APOC is in an awkward position; trying to follow fed constitutional case law, but AK statute is inconsistent with those cases. "APOC would prefer to not be sued in federal court and lose."

J. Maassen: Quid pro quo corruption hasn't been analyzed by fed court cases, right?

Fox: Yes, that issue hasn't been analyzed by fed courts.

J. Carney: Isn't it a traditional approach to following the law for APOC to apply the statute until they get sued and lose in fed court?

Fox: Well, yeah, but courts have said states can't apply those types of laws. Why is Alaska different?

J. Carney: Agency doesn't have discretion to decide what constitution requires and decide to not follow certain laws?

Fox: Yes, agencies should try to follow the law, even constitutional principles.

J. Carney: Can Troopers decide certain laws relating to guns are unconstitutional and decide to not enforce them?

Fox: Troopers aren't prosecuting the laws; they do have lots of discretion....

J. Carney: What if it's natural resources? Not enforce conservation laws?

Fox: Ummmm

J. Carney: What about AG Opinion (from @SenDanSullivan) saying that Citizens United didn't mean APOC couldn't apply AK statutes?

Fox: Well, that memo wasn't looking at this specific question.

Fox: Now discussing the "safe harbour statute" which allows APOC to provide guidance to public and means it won't retrospectively regulate past violations.

Lawrence Lessig @lessig now up for the plaintiffs: "Question is whether AS 15.13.070 is constitutional?"

Example: Focus is on the speech, what is "quid pro quo" corruption? Institutional corruption... Framers hated British parliament...

Lessig is either giving a constitutional law lecture or a history lesson about corruption, hard to tell. He called Alaska "sovereign" tho, so points!

Lessig: Increasing dependence in Alaska on outsider groups. In Alaska 99% of independent money is from +$1000. Outside spending for 2018 Gov race was 4x in state. Ballot measures are dominated by large "liberal" outside groups.

Is Lessig saying Alaska's elections are rife with corruption, or....

Lessig: "We just want to follow the law too. A state is free to regulate until it's told that it can't. SCOTUS hasn't addressed super PACs."

Lessig: The Court should articulate why the state shouldn't be allowed to regulate "institutional corruption."

Lessig: Ensure that Alaska is not more dependent on non-Alaskans. Ensure systemic integrity of representative democracy. This Court is free to articulate why that power allows the state to regulate campaign contributions.

Lessig: The principles of originalism in SCOTUS "uniquely join the members on the left with the originalists"
...
"I feel like I've lost you, you're all the way across the world..."

C.J. Bolger: Court's analysis in 2nd Amendment cases, wasn't the analysis limited to the 2nd Amendment itself. Is that the same as originalism for 1st Amendment, corruption?

Lessig: Framers would have permitted AK to regulate institutional corruption. Certainly.

Lessig: Originalism is both a practice for interpreting the meaning of an early text, but also a practice for ensuring a judge's discretion gets cabined.

Lessig: There's more than 1 conception of corruption; the Framers were animated to prevent "institutional corruption."

Fox on Rebuttal: "This is an unusual case." Plaintiffs agree that cases APOC relied on are wrong. They haven't explained why APOC shouldn't follow 9th Circuit case law.

^*argue.

Fox: APOC's advisory opinion was reasonable and w/n its authority.

C.J. Bolger: That's it. No more questions. /end.