Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 816, 120 S.Ct. 1878, 146 L.Ed.2d 865 (2000)). 12 . 558 U.S. at 359, 130 S.Ct. 876; see also McCutcheon, 134-S.Ct. at 1441; Lair, 798 F.3d at 746-47 n.7 ("But to the extent Citizens United left that question open, McCutcheon confirmed that quid pro quo corruption of its appearance are the only interests that can support contribution restrictions.”). 13 . McCutcheon, 134 S.Ct. at 1441 (citing Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 359, 130 S.Ct. 876). 14 . Id. (quoting FEC v. Nat’l Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480, 497, 105 S.Ct. 1459, 84 L.Ed.2d 455 (1985)). 15 . McCutcheon, 134 S.Ct. at 1441 (quoting Arizona Free Enter. Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 564 U.S. 721, 131 S.Ct. 2806, 2826, 180 L.Ed.2d 664 (2011)); see also Thaiheimer, 645 F.3d at 1119 (<HOLDING>). 16 . Alaska Stat. 15.13.070(b)(1). 17 . See
holding citizens lacked standing to challenge statute when all citizens affected in the same way recognizing that citizens united narrowed the scope of the anticorruption rationale to cover quid pro quo corruption only as opposed to money spent to obtain influence over or access to elected officials quoting another source holding that it is always appropriate to assume that our elected representatives like other citizens know the law holding that the right to associate with others as a military company is not a privilege of citizens of the united states holding that the government has a substantial interest in requiring candidates to disclose the sources of campaign contributions to provide the electorate with information about the interests to which a candidate is most likely to be responsive to deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption and to detect violations of the contribution limitations