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 Two Minutes – August 21, 2014

WorldIn2Logo

It’s been one year since the largest chemical weapons attack in Syria, and a Brazilian environmentalist surges in popularity ahead of October elections.

Nixon Orders Withdrawal Of National Guard From Ferguson

FergusonMore

With the withdrawal of the National Guard, the State Highway Patrol will assume control of the situation in Ferguson from a security perspective.

State Dept. Bans Diplomats From ‘Ice Bucket Challenge’

State Department

The State Department went on to say that it wishes the ALS Association the best of luck as it continues its efforts to combat the disease.

Obama Sued Over Refusal To Let Gov Be Transparent

You were never supposed to find out about this secret White House memo.

Perry Calls For “Overwhelming Force” In Iraq

Perry called for “nothing less than a sustained air campaign.”

Romney And Ryan To Share Stage Again

Both Romney and Ryan have been floated as potential 2016 candidates.