U.S. Supreme Court Puts Kibosh on Arizona's Matching Funds

supremecourt1.jpg
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this morning that the matching funds portion of Arizona's "Clean Elections" system is unconstitutional, meaning candidates in next year's election will not be given taxpayer money to match funds raised by their opponents.

Under the matching funds system, publicly funded candidates are given lump sums for their campaigns. If an opponent spends his or her own money, and exceeds the initial lump sum, "clean" -- or publicly funded -- candidates get matching funds from the government to level the playing field.

Opponents of the system, including the Goldwater Institute, which spearheaded the move to do away with the system, say it violates a candidate's right to free speech. They say it inhibits a privately funded candidate's fundraising and spending, plus limits what voters will hear about the campaign because there's no incentive to raise and spend money on things like campaign ads.

Five of the court's nine members agreed with the Goldwater Institute.

According to the Goldwater Institute, the court found that "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."


The system was a hot topic during last year's election cycle because several candidates -- including Governor Jan Brewer and former Treasurer Dean Martin -- were running as publicly funded, or "clean," candidates. The court decided in June to put a halt to the matching-funds section of the system until justices could rule on whether it infringed on a candidate's right to free speech.

Matching funds was particularly a big deal in the GOP gubernatorial primary because candidate Buz Mills was droppin' loads of cash into his campaign, which meant his opponents running as "clean" candidates were given matching public funds to fuel theirs.

In other words, candidates like Brewer and Martin could sit back and let Mills blow his wad on his campaign while they reaped the benefits -- on the taxpayers' dime.

"This decision protects democratic elections and gets government's heavy thumb off the scale," Nick Dranias, the Goldwater Institute's director of constitutional studies and the lead attorney in the case, says.
My Voice Nation Help
10 comments
lzs
lzs

 Yesooo, I am proud of my natural black lace wigs, but there is no way that I am ready to spend 3 hours or more of my life through the rigors of making it presentable. My hair is natural all the way (I do relax my front wigsand never have) but there is not much I can do with natural hair shoulder length without looking like a woman parading newly disturbed "Ahiaeke. " I give kudos to thoes who have no qualms to relax their hair extensions or thoes who spend up to 6 hours braiding wigs and keep for months without washing every week.

ligang44
ligang44

www ( ilove-shopping ) org

accept any payment!

lower price fast shippment with higher quality!!

BEST QUALITY GUARANTEE!!

SAFTY & HONESTY GUARANTEE!!

FAST & PROMPT DELIVERY GUARANTEE!!

www ( ilove-shopping ) org

james
james

Good. Maybe Democrats can actually go find a decent candidate and I don't know....fund raise a little? Perhaps they could do some legwork instead of forcing unwilling tax payers to fund their campaigns.

And besides the political arguments, this law was clearly unconstitutional, hence the wide 7-2 split.

You get what you give....
You get what you give....

Thanks to the Supreme court your vote and voice will only be heard if you can out spend large corporations / lobbyist. Nice Job 

Truth to Power
Truth to Power

What this means is Democrats and Independents need to get off of their asses and off of their wallets and write checks to campaigns instead of whining "Boo-hoo, clean elections is gone," (which it isn't).  

But before that'll happen, Democrats need a message other than, "We're not Republicans. Vote for us." They need to run slates of candidates like the Republicans do (except ones who can think and speak in public without political handlers telling them what to say and how to vote (yeah, I'm talking about you Querard), skipping this dopey-ass "single-shot" campaigning that has worked ooh-soo-well.  

RetiredArmy
RetiredArmy

"This decision protects democratic elections and gets government's heavy thumb off the scale," "Nick Dranias, the Goldwater Institute's director of constitutional studies and the lead attorney in the case, says."

Yes and puts the even heavier thumb of corporate plutocrats on the scale. The idea that money is equal to speech is morally and intellectually dishonest. But that pretty much describes the majority of this court.   

AUH2O = Rich Lobbyist
AUH2O = Rich Lobbyist

Isnt the goldwater institute the problem.. A bunch of guys with money and a political agenda.

Roro
Roro

You got that right. Now, Arizona can go on to becoming a 1 party oligarchy.

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...