High Court Strikes Matching Funds For Publicly Financed Campaigns

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday struck down an Arizona law that provides matching funds to publicly-financed candidates when a privately-financed candidate, or third party groups supporting him, spend more money than the publicly-financed candidate was given.

Under the law, the publicly-financed candidate is given money to match the other candidate’s spending.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that providing funds to a candidate’s opponent is a burden on the political speech of the privately-financed candidate, and therefore the law violates the First Amendment. Unlike other laws the Supreme Court has struck down, the Arizona law directly gives money to candidates instead of raising contribution limits. This means that if a privately financed candidate raised $1,000 at a fundraiser, each of his opponents would receive $940.

Because a candidate would need to consider the benefit his opponents would receive before releasing a campaign ad, Roberts said, the system burdens political speech and is therefore unconstitutional.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing on behalf of herself and the Court’s liberal wing, pointed out that the Arizona scheme was passed by Arizona voters via referendum, and it was intended to combat real corruption in Arizona state offices.

She said that the law was an attempt to lessen the influence of big donors, and she noted that the initial grant of money was designed to be about as much as a candidate would likely need for a given race. Only if the privately financed candidate exceeded that amount would the other candidates receive additional money.

While Chief Justice Roberts called the scheme a “burden on political speech,” Kagan said that it “promotes the values underlying both the First Amendment and our entire Constitution by enhancing the opportunity for free political discussion.”

In his opinion, Roberts affirmed previous rulings which found that public financing “can further governmental interests, such as … preventing corruption,” but said that the Arizona law went too far.

The case was Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett.

About Jay Goodman Tamboli

View all posts by Jay Goodman Tamboli

LISTEN: The World in 2:00 – November 21, 2014

The World in 2:00 continents logo

The E.U. moves to crack down on plastic bag use across the continent and Joe Biden visits Kiev, but omits mention of new non-lethal assistance to the country.

Obama Tells Congress to “Pass A Bill”

“Pass a bill because the actions I’ve taken are only a temporary first step,” said President Obama at Del Sol High School in Nevada.

Alleged FARC Member Extradited To U.S.

Diego Alfonso Navarrete Beltran was extradited to the U.S. for his alleged participation in the kidnapping of three American hostages

The Latest On The Claims Backlog At The Department Of Veterans Affairs

TRNS interviewed Allison Hickey, Under Secretary for Benefits in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Plague Outbreak Hits Madagascar

Tired of Ebola? Now, the World Health Organization is warning against the Plague in Africa.

The Latest On Ferguson, Immigration, The Middle East And More

Here Are The Top TRNS Posts Of The Week!