<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><img alt=""
src="cid:part1.05000101.06050101@meek.net" align="right"
height="640" width="594"></font><br>
<h1>Supreme Court Blocks Arizona Election Funding</h1>
<span class="toolSet" style="width: 345px;">
<div class="byline"> <span class="byline">David G. Savage and
Jennifer Martinez, Tribune Washington Bureau</span>
<p class="date"><span class="dateString">June 8, 2010</span><span
class="dateTimeSeparator"> | </span><span
class="timeString">2:39 p.m.</span></p>
</div>
</span>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.
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
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.
<p>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.</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>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."</p>
<p>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."</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><a href="mailto:David.savage@latimes.com">David.savage@latimes.com</a></p>
<p><a href="mailto:JenMartinez@Tribune.Com">JenMartinez@Tribune.Com</a></p>
</body>
</html>