Alaska Right to Life Committee v. Brooke Miles Andrea Jacobson Larry Wood Mark Handley John Dapcevich Sheila Allaghaer

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that “[ijndividual citizens seeking to make informed choices in the political marketplace ... need to know what entity is funding a communication” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• recognizing that “[i]ndividual citi- zens seeking to make informed choices in the political mar- ketplace . . . need to know what entity is funding a communication” (citation and internal quotation marks omit- ted)
• concluding that “the Court [in McConnell] did not apply ‘strict scrutiny’ or require a ‘compelling state interest[,]’ ” but nonetheless “assum[ing] without deciding that strict scru- tiny applies to all of the challenged disclosure requirements”
• holding that reporting requirements are “not particularly onerous” and survive scrutiny
• rejecting a mootness argument where nonprofit AKRTL planned to engage in a routine, ideological telemarketing campaign when “the provisions of Aaska law challenged by AKRTL remain in place”
• rejecting vagueness challenge to Alaska statute defining an “electioneering communication” to mean a communication that “directly or indirectly identifies a candidate”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).