On Wednesday, I had an oral argument “in” (virtually, unfortunately) the Alaska Supreme Court in our case arguing to uphold the state’s law regulating SuperPACs, Patrick, et al., v. Alaska.
We’ve adopted a different strategy in this case from, say, Lieu v. FEC: Our aim is to argue to the originalists on the United States Supreme Court especially that their theory of constitutional interpretation should lead them to embrace an original understanding of the operative term in their First Amendment test — “corruption”—and that such an understanding would allow the regulation of SuperPACs.
If we get to the United States Supreme Court in this case, this will be the third time I will be arguing to originalists on the Supreme Court that their principles should favor my clients.
The first was Eldred v. Aschroft…
