Litigation

Public Financing Case Could Have ?Broad Impact?

By Peter Hardin

An upcoming Supreme Court challenge to part of Arizona’s public financing law could have national implications, J. Gerald Hebert and Tara Malloy of the Campaign Legal Center write in that group’s blog.

An adverse ruling in McComish v. Bennett could make it more difficult for ordinary citizens to “compete with big money in our democracy,” the authors write. They go on to examine possible implications:

“The case could have a broad impact on federal and state efforts to create alternative methods for funding election campaigns. Depending on its scope, an adverse ruling from the high Court could undermine public financing systems across the country and increase still further the grossly disproportionate voice given to corporations and unions in our elections.”

The commentary includes links to numerous friend-of-the-court briefs filed in support of respondents in the case. One of them is a brief by Justice at Stake and 14 former jurists.

The JAS brief warned that a ?deluge of special interest money is eroding public trust in America?s courts,? and it urged the Supreme Court to uphold the “trigger funds” provision that is found in many public campaign financing laws. Four states that have enacted public financing for judicial elections also use the provision. To learn more, check out Gavel Grab or the JAS resources page about the case.

The Campaign Legal Center is a JAS partner on state reform issues.

Full post as published by The Gavel on March 18, 2011 (boomark / email).