Restoring Alaska’s Campaign Finance Limits Initiative — An Act Limiting Contributions to Campaigns
No official yes/no statements in Alaska.
GAP-FILL 2026-10-10: Re-verified: the same SOS PDF was re-downloaded with full TLS verification (server omits its intermediate certificate; intermediate "GlobalSign GCC R46 OV TLS CA 2025" fetched from GlobalSign's published AIA URL and chained to the system-trusted GlobalSign Root R46; curl ssl_verify_result=0). SHA-256 is byte-identical to the copy used for extraction (General: 7c50c5d0…eb7f; Primary: b3e4eee3…a3), so all extracted content is from the authentic file.
This act would change the amount of money that people and groups can give to state and local political campaigns. A court ruling in 2021 removed the limits on contributions by individuals. With this act, individuals could give $2,000 to candidates and $5,000 to political parties. Groups besides political parties could give $4,000 to candidates and $5,000 to other parties or groups. Individuals could also give $4,000 to joint campaigns for governor and lieutenant governor, and groups could give $8,000. These limits would increase with inflation every ten years beginning in 2031. Should this initiative become law?
Not published by the state
Not published by the state
The bill sets limits on campaign donations. The bill applies to both state and local elections. Under the bill, a person may give a candidate $2,000 each election cycle. A person may give a joint campaign for the governor’s office $4,000 each cycle. A person may give a political party or a group $5,000 a year. A group may give a candidate $4,000 each cycle. A group may give a joint campaign for the governor’s office $8,000 each cycle. A group may give a group or an organization $5,000 a year. An organization may give a candidate $4,000 each cycle. An organization may give an organization or a group $5,000 a year. The bill provides for the limits to keep pace with inflation. The bill makes clear that the limits do not apply to a donation made to a group that only makes independent expenditures. The bill does not apply to a donation made before the bill takes effect.
Multi Agency Cost Summary Agency Cost Alaska Public Offices Commission Office of the Lieutenant Governor Office of the Lieutenant Governor – Division of Elections TOTAL $0 $15,000 $105,503 $120,503 Estimate of Costs to the Alaska Public Offices Commission As required by AS 15.45.090(a)(4), the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) has prepared the following statement of costs to implement the proposed ballot initiative. The proposed initiative seeks to impose political campaign contribution limits and calls for inflationproofing the limits, by regulation, every 10 years. Although the initiative would require filer education and outreach activities, APOC does not anticipate additional costs associated with those activities. Estimate of Costs to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor and the Division of Elections As required by AS 15.45.090(a)(3), the Office of the Lieutenant Governor and the Division of Elections have prepared the following statement of costs to implement the proposed ballot initiative. Lieutenant Governor Under Alaska Statute 15.45.195, at least 30 days before the election at which an initiative is to appear on the ballot, the lieutenant governor or a designee of the lieutenant governor shall hold two or more public hearings concerning the initiative in each judicial district of the state. Each public hearing under this section shall include the written or oral testimony of one supporter and one opponent of the initiative. Estimated cost of travel for Lt. Governor and one staff member $15,000 Division of Elections The minimum cost to the Division of Elections associated with certification of the initiative application and review of the initiative petition, excluding legal costs to the state and the costs to the state of any challenge to the validity of the petition, is estimated to be $105,503. Six temporary employees will be required to review signatures for 2,520 hours at an estimated cost of $52,793 and certification of the initiative application and review of the initiative petition estimated for 504 hours will cost an estimated $21,674. Printing service expenses associated with certification of the initiative application and review of the initiative petition will require $1,420 for the printing of voter booklets. Estimated cost of translating the ballot measure language for audio and sample ballots, an Official Election Pamphlet pro statement, Official Election Pamphlet con statement, and Official Election Pamphlet neutral summary into languages required by the Toyukak Settlement and Section 203 of the Federal Voting Rights Act, will require an estimated $29,616. Estimate by Category Petition Review Petition Printing Services Language Translations of Initiative Text TOTAL $74,467 $1,420 $29,616 $105,503
Summary Today, individuals from anywhere in the country can donate unlimited funds directly to candidates in Alaska’s local and state elections. This means that the floodgates are open for wealthy and special interests, particularly those from the Lower 48 who may not share Alaskan values, to drown out the voices of everyday Alaskans. When a single donor can spend hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars on a single candidate, it creates a dangerous environment. It not only grants undue influence to the ultra-wealthy, but also exposes our elected officials to the risk and perception of quid pro quo corruption. Alaskans from all across our state placed this initiative on the ballot because we believe our elections should belong to us, not to the highest bidder. By voting YES, you are choosing to reinstate fair, reasonable, and constitutional campaign contribution limits. History For decades, Alaska was a national leader in campaign finance integrity. In 2006, 73% of Alaskan voters confirmed these values by supporting strict contribution limits to keep “big money” from dominating our political landscape. These limits ensured that the voices of ordinary Alaskans were on the same footing as wealthy and special interests and in turn, heard by their representatives. But, that changed in 2021 when a federal court struck down Alaska’s voter-approved campaign contribution limits – resulting in elections where a donor can give unlimited amounts directly to candidates. Without these guardrails, wealthy individuals and special interests can have an oversized impact and shift a candidate’s focus away from the constituents they are supposed to serve. What the Initiative Does The Campaign Finance Reform Initiative (23RCF2) restores balance to our system. It establishes a framework that allows candidates to raise necessary campaign funds while preventing any one individual or group from buying an outsized influence. Specifically, this initiative: ● Establishes Clear Limits: It sets a contribution limit of up to $2,000 per election cycle from an individual to a candidate, and up to $4,000 from a group (these limits are doubled for gubernatorial races). ● Equalizes the Playing Field: It shifts the contribution structure to a per-election cycle basis rather than a per-calendar year basis. This ensures that new challengers are on a level playing field with incumbents who often begin fundraising years in advance. ● Provides Inflation Adjustments: It directs the Alaska Public Offices Commission to adjust these limits for inflation, ensuring the limits remain reasonable and constitutional over time. Conclusion This initiative addresses judicial concerns while reflecting what Alaskans have consistently demanded: fair elections and representatives who answer to voters. This initiative does not favor any specific party; it simply ensures that everyone plays by the same rules. Vote YES to protect Alaskan voices, restore Alaska’s tradition of accountability, and keep our elected officials focused on the people who live and work in Alaska, not on outside mega-donors and special interests.
Bruce Botelho; Calvin Schrage; David Monson; Citizens Against Money in Politics
Prop 1 wants you to think it is for “fairness,” but it actually limits your right to support the causes you believe in. While the goal is to change how much money people can give to campaigns, the actual results would hurt freedom of speech and ignore how the real world works. Protecting Your Voice Campaign contributions are a form of political speech. To limit someone’s ability to support a candidate is to limit their voice in the democratic process. In 2021, a court ruled that individuals should not have these types of limits on their donations. This is because giving money to a candidate is a way of expressing a political opinion. By putting a cap back on individual donations, this act makes it harder for regular people to have a big impact. When we limit how much people can give, we make it harder for new or “outsider” candidates to raise enough money to get their message out and we give a leg up to incumbents. This kind of cap helps only those politicians who are already in power. Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United have shown that the government shouldn’t be capping political support, yet this initiative tries to do exactly that. Reintroducing new caps creates a “pay-to-play” barrier where only those who already possess significant name recognition can thrive, effectively silencing the grassroots support necessary for insurgent or unconventional candidates. The Inflation Problem Another major issue is how the act handles the rising cost of living, or inflation. The initiative says these limits will only go up once every ten years. A decade-long freeze on contribution limits is an eternity. • Value Drops Every Year: As inflation rises, the real-world value of a capped donation today will buy much less than in five years. • Rising Costs: Just to maintain the same purchasing power, candidates will be forced to spend more time fundraising and less time talking with voters and working on important policies. • Long Wait Times: Waiting until 2031 to adjust these numbers for the first time is simply too long in a fast-changing economy. Do any of us think our household or businesses expenses will be the same five years from now? Voters should reject Initiative Prop 1. It is an act that favors the status quo and special interests, ignores the protection of free speech, and fails to account for the rapid pace of our economy. We should be encouraging more participation in our democracy, not drafting laws that make it harder for citizens to be heard. As former legislators, we believe that Prop 1 is a step in the wrong direction for Alaska. This statement is supported by former state Senators David Wilson and Edna DeVries, alongside former state Representatives Liz Vazquez, Ben Carpenter, and Larry Baker. Join us in voting NO.
Liz Vazquez, former member of the Alaska House of Representatives; David Wilson, former member of the Alaska State Senate; Ben Carpenter, former member of the Alaska House of Representatives
Both columns use the same layout. Text is quoted from the official state guide. Views expressed belong to the argument authors.