My buddy Asher Huey made my life a little easier today by emailing me some information that I had not yet caught, being that I’m in California and running well behind some of you. He has graciously allowed me to pass on what he sent to me:
SCOTUS just overturned the public financing law in Arizona. The Arizona system was a trigger funds system, where an opponent’s public funds will increase if a privately funded candidate spends over a certain amount. Some are calling it worse than Citizens United. Roberts authored the decision. There are some silver linings that people want to focus on.
Some key quotes from Kagan’s dissent:
“So they are making a novel argument: that Arizona violated their First Amendment rights by disbursing funds to other speakers even though they could have received (but chose to spurn) the same financial assistance. Some people might call that chutzpah.”
“If an ordinary citizen, without the hindrance of a law degree, thought this result an upending of First Amendment values, he would be correct.”
The decision is typical of the corporate Roberts supreme court, but the foundation for public financing is strong. They only overturned trigger funds, not public financing.
We need to remember that the federal Fair Elections Now Act currently before Congress is not affected.
Here is the press release from Public Campaign, in part:
The Supreme Court today reaffirmed the constitutionality of public financing as a means of fighting political corruption in the case Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett (also known as McComish v. Bennett), while striking down one mechanism used in Arizona’s program. The foundation of public campaign finance programs remains strong, and it is more important than ever that we preserve and extend those reforms, campaign finance groups Common Cause and Public Campaign said.
“The Court’s misguided ruling affects only one mechanism of public financing, and there are numerous ways to fix it,” said Common Cause President Bob Edgar. “Today, in the wake of Citizens United, it is more critical than ever that we change the way we pay for our elections by moving to a small donor system that gives the public a voice back in our government. Nothing short of our democracy is at stake.”
“The five-vote big-money majority on the Court has spoken again in favor of wealthy special interests,” said Nick Nyhart, president and CEO of Public Campaign. “Fortunately, the Court has left room for small-donor driven systems like the Fair Elections Now Act.” [...]
As the Supreme Court continues to dismantle common sense campaign reform legislation, it’s up to members of Congress, as well as state legislators, to move forward with legislation to ensure our elections are of, by and for the people—not bought and paid for by special interests.
Fair Elections laws reduce the actuality or appearance of corruption that can arise as a result of private campaign spending, free participating candidates to devote more of their time and energy listening to the concerns of all voters – not just those who give them campaign donations – and have encouraged dozens of political newcomers, who lack independent wealth or a pre-existing network of financial support, to enter the political arena.
Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent shows a far firmer grasp of the First Amendment and its purposes than that proposed by the majority opinion.
Also, here is a good blog post about it:
This case is much, much worse than Citizens United, which at least had a reasonable basis in the First Amendment. This case strikes down a law that doesn’t prevent people from spending as much money as they want if they choose and represents a net increase in political speech.
Please read the whole post, and thanks again to Asher for the links and insights.
TPC RSS Story Feed
TPC Comments Feed
