[CFR-Announce] U.S. Supreme Court Destroys Arizona Public Funding System
Dan Meek
dan at meek.net
Wed Jun 9 22:18:04 CDT 2010
Supreme Court Blocks Arizona Election Funding
David G. Savage and Jennifer Martinez, Tribune Washington Bureau
June 8, 2010 | 2:39 p.m.
Washington....The Supreme Court, in an unusual move, came to the aid
Tuesday of well-funded candidates in Arizona and blocked the state from
giving extra public money to those candidates who had agreed to forego
private financing.
The court's emergency orders throws a wrench into the state's campaigns
two months before its primary elections. It is the latest sign the high
court's conservative bloc is skeptical of legal rules to limit election
spending or to equalize the spending between wealthy and not-so-wealthy
candidates.
Two years ago, the court in a 5-4 decision intervened on a behalf of a
wealthy candidate for Congress from upstate New York and struck down the
so-called "Millionaire's Amendment." That measure, part of the
McCain-Feingold Act, allowed a candidate to raise more money through
larger donations if his opponent was spending lavishly. Justice Samuel
A. Alito Jr. called it a "drag" on the free-speech rights of the
millionaire candidate because he was penalized for spending more on his
race.
That ruling, in turn, fueled a 1st Amendment challenge to Arizona's
Clean Elections Law, which was approved by its voters in 1998. The
measure was designed to combat corruption in the state legislature. It
providing public funds for candidates who agreed to abide by limits on
spending and fund-raising.
Gov. Jan Brewer was among those who were surprised by the high court's
order. She called it "terribly troubling." A Republican, she is being
challenged in the Republican primary by Buz Mills, a wealthy
businessman, who has already spent more than $2 million on his race.
Brewer had agreed to public funding and was to receive $707,000 for her
campaign. She was also eligible to receive up to $1.4 million in extra
matching funds because Mills, her opponent, had vastly outspent her. The
Supreme Court's order means she will not receive the extra money later
this month.
"It is extremely unusual for the judicial branch to change the rules of
an election while it is being held," Brewer said. The primary election
is set for August 24. The matching funds were to go out on June 22. For
its part, the Supreme Court order is likely to stay in effect at least
until the fall, when it probably will hear arguments in the case.
Todd Lang, executive director of the Arizona Clean Elections Commission,
said he too was surprised by the timing of the court's intervention.
"I'm extremely disappointed. To take an action such as this so late in
the election cycle is unprecedented. Matching funds result in more
speech and political debate, not less."
But the challengers, led by the Goldwater Institute and the Institute
for Justice, called the court's order a "victory of freedom of political
speech."
The decision "will allow the 2010 Arizona election to occur without the
government placing its thumb on the scale in favor of those politicians
who receive public funding," said Bill Maurer for the IJ.
In January the Supreme Court gave corporations a free speech right to
spend unlimited amounts on election races, overturning another part of
the McCain-Feingold act.
The Arizona law has been in effect for a decade, and most state
legislators have agreed to take public funding. But the court has said
candidates always retain the right to raise and spend money on their own.
Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Millionaire's Amendment, a
federal judge in Phoenix struck down Arizona's system of matching funds
for candidates who faced well-healed opponents. The ruling did not void
the principle of public funding, however.
However, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals revived the full law this
spring and said the extra matching funds did not infringe the
free-speech rights of the millionaire candidates.
The challengers appealed to the high court seeking an emergency order to
block the distribution of the matching funds until the Supreme Court can
rule on the constitutional challenge. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy,
speaking for the court, granted the order Tuesday. He did not say who
voted in favor, but it takes the votes of five justices to grant a stay.
Nick Dranias, lead lawyer for the Goldwater Institute, said the matching
funds violate the 1st Amendment rights of the privately funded candidate
because the state "funds dollar for dollar hostile speech against you."
If the privately funded candidate raises more money, his opponent gets
more public funds, he said.
Loyola Law Professor Richard Hasen, an election law expert, said the
court's order signals the justices are likely to take up the
constitutional challenge and strike down the key part of the Arizona
law. "It shows there is such a distrust of these measures among five
justices," said. "It also shows a lot is up for grabs" in the area of
campaign finance, he said.
David.savage at latimes.com <mailto:David.savage at latimes.com>
JenMartinez at Tribune.Com <mailto:JenMartinez at Tribune.Com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oreg.org/pipermail/cfr-announce_oreg.org/attachments/20100609/e2ffe9c8/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: freespeech.jpg.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 154601 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oreg.org/pipermail/cfr-announce_oreg.org/attachments/20100609/e2ffe9c8/attachment-0001.jpg>
More information about the CFR-Announce
mailing list