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

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Senate Passes Fast-track Authority, Moves To Resistant House

The bill moves on to the lower chamber where it faces an inevitable battle from House Democrats.

Senate Rejects Currency Provision

Senate Republicans (Photo by James Cullum)

The failed provision is a win for President Obama who issued a veto threat over the entire fast-track bill if the amendment passed

UN: Women Disproportionately Affected by Nepal Earthquake

The flag of the Nepal at the United Nations. Photo: Luke Vargas/TRNS

Gender discrimination, a lack of maternal health facilities and poor security in temporary camps is making post-earthquake life difficult for Nepali women.

The World in 2:00 – May 22, 2015

The World in 2:00 continents logo

UN data shows women disproportionately affected by the Nepal earthquake and Irish voters are poised to legalize same-sex marriage in a national vote today.

Obama Signs Law Granting Congressional Review Of Iran Deal

Capitol

Congress will now be able to reject or approve a nuclear deal reached with Iran which is expected to be announced June 30

Obama Reaffirms Support For Israel, Defends Iran Nuclear Action

“It would be a moral failing on my part if we did not stand up firmly, steadfastly not just on behalf of Israel’s right to exist, but its right to thrive and prosper,” Obama said .