Restraining Arizona

Fixing 'clean' elections


Campaign finance reformers see expanded public funding of candidates as an antidote to Citizens United v. FEC, the January decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned restrictions on political speech by corporations. But their plans could be stymied by a case that reached a crucial juncture the day before that decision was announced.

In a ruling that was barely noticed at the time, U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver concluded that Arizona's "clean elections" system, which subsidizes participating candidates so they can match the spending of their privately financed opponents, imposes a "substantial burden" on freedom of speech. By giving a dollar to each opponent of a privately funded candidate for every dollar he spends above a predetermined threshold, Silver ruled, the system in effect punishes the privately funded candidate for speaking. Although Silver's injunction against the subsidies was overturned by an appeals court in May, it was restored in June by the Supreme Court, which is deciding whether to hear the case.

It is well established that direct restrictions on campaign spending violate the First Amendment. The question posed by this case is whether Arizona is trying to achieve the same result indirectly. Institute for Justice attorney Bill Maurer, one of the lawyers representing the activists and politicians challenging Arizona's system, argues that "the purpose of this law was to limit individuals' speech by limiting their spending." 

NEXT: Internet Kill Switch?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Although I don’t care for public financing of any campaigns, it’s on different grounds than this. I disagree that this is a First Amendment issue, as public funding for an opponent of a privately-funded candidate does not stop the privately-funded candidate from continuing to spend his or her own money as freely as he or she wishes. As far as I can tell, it doesn’t restrict them at all, except to give the other candidate the opportunity to layer the airwaves with as much bullshit as the rich guy.

    My objection is based on the idea that I don’t want my tax money paying for a political message I disagree with. If Poor Guy can’t drum up sufficient financial support to counter Rich Guy’s spending, that is hardly Rich Guy’s fault. That is the sum total of the rational argument against public financing of campaigns.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.