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

LISTEN: The Weekend Ahead – March 28-30, 2015

The Day Ahead Logo

Delayed Nigerian elections are scheduled to take place Saturday and Tunisia hosts a major anti-terrorism rally on Sunday.

Pentagon: Operations Resume Without Iran In Tikrit

And the U.S. is supporting Gulf allies in their fight against Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen… And a nuclear deal with Iran is still on the table for now…

Students Protests Republican 2016 Federal Budget

Students took to the Capitol grounds in protest over the freezing cap Republicans issued on the Pell Grant, an educational grant normally calculated on current economic conditions and income-based needs.

LISTEN: The World in 2:00 – March 27, 2015

The World in 2:00 continents logo

Saudi Arabia widens its campaign against Yemeni rebels and France will begin work on a Security Council resolution demanding Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

Report: Reid Endorses Chuck Schumer As Successor

Schumer is the upper chamber’s third ranking Democrat.

SF Mayor Bans Taxpayer-Funded Trips To Indiana

10460459_1027558480592766_7916887901678920970_n

“San Francisco taxpayers will not subsidize legally-sanctioned discrimination,” Mayor Ed Lee said.