Striking a blow to Arizona’s not-so Clean Election’s statute, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decision declaring unconstitutional the matching funds provisions of the state taxpayer-funded campaign finance scheme. In a 5 to 4 decision, the court stated “Any increase in speech resulting from the Arizona law is of one kind and one kind only: that of publicly financed candidates. The burden imposed on privately financed candidates and independent expenditure groups reduces their speech.”
The Supreme Court added: “The First amendment embodies our choice as a nation that, when it comes to [campaign] speech, the guiding principle is freedom — the ‘unfettered exchange of ideas’ — not whatever the State may view as fair.”
Whether Arizona’s matching funds provision comports with the First Amendment is not simply a question of whether the State can give a subsidy to a candidate to fund that candidate’s election, but whether that subsidy can be triggered by the speech of another candidate or independent group.
The Supreme Court’ s decision in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC et al. v. Bennett, Secretary of State of Arizona, et al. can be read here in its entirety.
“This decision protects democratic elections and gets government’s heavy thumb off the scale,” correctly concluded Nick Dranias, the Goldwater Institute’s director of Constitutional Studies and the lead attorney in the case. Read more here.
Once again, a majority of the Supremes gets it right.
That majority will only stay in place if Obama is defeated. We must all dedicate ourselves to ensuring that happens. It’s crucial.
Thank God for Chief Justice John Roberts! That man was one hell of an appointment by George W. Bush. The Roberts appointment more than made up for the short-term gaffe named Harriet Miers! Ouch!
Clean Elections must have been named by the same crew who named Planned Parenthood. Both names are deceptive.
Can you imagine if Robert Bork had been confirmed back in 1987? THAT would have been a helluva appointment! We would not have had a Souter, and instead of Sotomayor, a Justice Bork would would have made John Roberts look like a ‘moderate’!