Arizona elected officials file amicus curiae brief in Connecticut public funding case
The U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd circuit, will be scheduling oral arguments in Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield, the case challenging Connecticut’s public funding law.
You know it better as “Clean” Elections — which we contend is anything but.
The Green Party previously won the case in U.S. District Court and the state is appealing.
Yesterday, three Arizona elected officials filed this amicus brief in support of the Green Party‘s position. The 24-page amicus, or friend of the court brief, argues against the “trigger provision” in the Connecticut law.
The Connecticut law requires that if a candidate who doesn’t qualify for public funding still manages to raise private funds exceeding the expenditure limit for an opponent who is receiving public funds, the publicly-financed candidate is permitted to receive substantial additional public funding.
The three Arizona elected officials are Arizona State Treasurer Dean Martin, State Senate President Robert Burns (R-Dist.9), and State Representative Rick Murphy (R-Dist.9). They are also plaintiffs in an Arizona lawsuit challenging the Arizona public funding “trigger provision.”
In August 2008, U.S. District Court (AZ) Judge Roslyn Silver, preliminarily ruled that a similar provision violates the First Amendment, relying on the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in Davis v. Federal Election Commission. The case is McComish v. Bennett (formerly McComish v. Brewer). The judge declined to stop the program because an election was nearing and the case remains pending.
But it really doesn’t get much clearer than this: “Plaintiffs have established that the Matching Funds provision of the Act violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” (Page 7, lines 18, 19)
H/T to Campaign Freedom.