The Alaska Supreme Court ruled February 13, 2026, in *Alaska Policy Forum v. Alaska Public Offices Commission*, a case challenging state campaign finance disclosure requirements for ballot proposition campaigns. The decision involved the Alaska Policy Forum as appellant against the Alaska Public Offices Commission and two election reform groups, Yes on 2 for Better Elections and Protect My Ballot.
The case originated in the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, under Judge Frank A. Pfiffner before reaching the state's highest court on appeal. The Alaska Policy Forum was represented by attorneys from Holmes Weddle & Barcott in Anchorage and the Institute for Free Speech, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that advocates for First Amendment rights in campaign finance contexts.
The state defended its position through the Attorney General's office, with Assistant Attorney General Kimberly D. Rodgers representing the Alaska Public Offices Commission. Yes on 2 for Better Elections was represented by attorneys Samuel G. Gottstein and Scott M. Kendall of Cashion Gilmore & Lindemuth. Protect My Ballot did not appear in the proceedings.
Justice Borghesan authored the court's opinion, with Chief Justice Maassen and Justices Carney, Henderson, and Pate participating in the decision. The opinion emphasized the fundamental principle that democratic government requires an informed electorate to function effectively.
"The effective functioning of our democratic form of government is premised on an informed electorate," Justice Borghesan wrote in the opinion's introduction. "When citizens vote on the basis of misinformation, or a lack of relevant information, the decision-making process on which our government ultimately rests suffers to that extent."
The case centered on Alaska's legal requirements for public reporting of expenditures made to influence ballot proposition outcomes. Under Alaska law, voters exercise direct legislative power through ballot propositions, making transparency in related campaign spending a matter of particular importance to state regulators.
Alaska's campaign finance laws require disclosure of expenditures made for the purpose of influencing ballot proposition results. The state also mandates specific disclosure requirements for advertisements and announcements related to these campaigns, ensuring voters can identify the sources of campaign messaging.
The Alaska Public Offices Commission serves as the state's campaign finance watchdog, enforcing disclosure requirements and investigating potential violations. The commission's role becomes especially critical during election cycles involving ballot measures, where voters must navigate competing claims and arguments from various interest groups.
The Alaska Policy Forum, which brought the challenge, describes itself as advocating for free-market policies and limited government. The organization's involvement of the Institute for Free Speech as counsel signals the case's potential First Amendment dimensions, as that organization typically challenges campaign finance regulations on constitutional grounds.
Yes on 2 for Better Elections appears to be connected to Alaska's election reform efforts, though the specific ballot measure referenced in the group's name was not detailed in the available court documents. Protect My Ballot, the third appellee, did not participate in the appellate proceedings.
The case reflects ongoing tensions between transparency advocates who support robust campaign finance disclosure and free speech organizations that argue such requirements can chill political expression. Alaska's disclosure laws aim to provide voters with information about who is funding attempts to influence their decisions on ballot measures.
Ballot proposition campaigns often involve complex funding networks, with money flowing from national organizations, local interest groups, and individual donors. Alaska's reporting requirements are designed to trace these financial connections and make them public before voters cast their ballots.
The timing of the decision, coming in February 2026, positions it to potentially influence upcoming election cycles in Alaska. Campaign finance disclosure requirements become particularly relevant during years with significant ballot measures, when outside spending can reach substantial levels.
Alaska has historically taken an aggressive approach to campaign finance transparency, requiring detailed reporting of contributions and expenditures in both candidate and ballot measure campaigns. The state's disclosure laws have faced periodic constitutional challenges, typically on First Amendment grounds.
The involvement of the Institute for Free Speech suggests the Alaska Policy Forum's challenge likely raised constitutional questions about the scope and application of Alaska's disclosure requirements. That organization has successfully challenged similar laws in other jurisdictions, arguing that overly broad disclosure requirements can violate associational privacy rights.
The court's emphasis on informed voter decision-making indicates the justices viewed the case through the lens of democratic participation rather than purely as a First Amendment matter. This framing suggests the court may have found Alaska's disclosure requirements serve compelling state interests in election integrity.
The case's resolution at the state supreme court level makes it unlikely to face further appeal, as campaign finance law typically falls within state jurisdiction unless federal constitutional questions are involved. The decision will likely serve as precedent for future challenges to Alaska's campaign finance disclosure regime.
For Alaska voters and advocacy groups, the decision provides clarity on the boundaries of state campaign finance law as it applies to ballot proposition campaigns. The ruling will influence how organizations structure their political spending and disclosure practices in future election cycles involving ballot measures.