Litigation

Editorials Back Public Financing Law

By Peter Hardin

An Arizona public financing law under challenge in the Supreme Court tends to promote speech, rather than limiting it, a Washington Post editorial declared.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in the case, McComish v. Bennett (see Gavel Grab). Here is what the Post editorial asserted in response to those who say the law effectively chills the speech of privately funded candidates:

“If anything, the Arizona law encourages speech ? a point made lucidly in an amicus brief written by former Reagan solicitor general Charles Fried on behalf of a bipartisan group of former lawmakers that includes onetime Republican senators Nancy Landon Kassebaum and Alan Simpson and former Democratic senators Bill Bradley and Sam Nunn. ‘By providing a voluntary public financing system for candidates that is viable,’ the brief concludes, ‘the [Arizona] program aims to increase the speech in Arizona?s public discourse, enriching the marketplace of ideas.’”

A USA Today editorial, meanwhile, was headlined, “Our view: Leave public financing in elections.” The newspaper ran an opposing view written by William Maurer, who argued in the high court Monday on behalf of the law’s challengers; the essay was entitled, “Law chills candidates’ speech.”

Check out Gavel Grab’s extensive coverage of the case by clicking here.

Full post as published by The Gavel on March 28, 2011 (boomark / email).