Litigation

AZ Public-Finance Law Defended by JAS Partner

By Peter Hardin

The U.S. Supreme Court  should uphold an Arizona law that furnishes extra dollars to publicly financed candidates running against wealthy, privately funded opponents, a Justice at Stake partner group argues in a brief submitted to the high court.

The Brennan Center for Justice recently submitted its brief in McComish v. Bennett, which will be argued March 28, on behalf of the Arizona Clean Elections Institute.

The case is widely watched because it raises questions about campaign finance laws  that were written to help publicly funded candidates get a more equal footing with self-financed candidates who outspend them. Arizona’s statute was designed to limit the influence of big political spending and special interest campaign contributions.

The Arizona law ties extra public funds provided to participating candidates to the sums raised or spent on behalf of their non-participating foes. This is called a trigger mechanism. Critics have challenged the constitutionality of the provision, contending that giving taxpayer matching funds to qualifying candidates amounts to a penalty on their privately-funded opponents? speech by inhibiting their fundraising.

In a summary of its brief, the Brennan Center said Arizona’s law “is carefully tailored to combat political corruption, enhance political speech, and increase electoral competition in a fiscally responsible way.” The summary added:

“While candidates who accept public funding agree voluntarily to limit their spending, Arizona?s law places no limit on the amount that any privately financed candidate or independent committee may spend. Since the law took effect in 1998, spending by both privately financed candidates and independent committees has risen, electoral competition has increased, and the state has remained free of the corruption scandals that spurred the voters to enact the Clean Elections Act.”

“If the triggered matching funds provision in Arizona?s voluntary public financing law were invalidated, the result would be less (not more) political speech and electoral competition, and the state?s compelling interests in combating corruption and enhancing political participation would be undermined.”

To learn more about the Arizona statute and legal challenge to part of it, check out Gavel Grab.

Full post as published by The Gavel on February 16, 2011 (boomark / email).