Litigation

Scholar Handicaps Court on McComish

By Peter Hardin

In a major campaign finance case to be argued before the Supreme Court Monday, election law scholar Rick Hasen expects an ultimate legal ruling favoring “free speech for the wealthy.”

Hasen has written a commentary in Slate entitled, “Rich Candidate Expected to Win Again/Does the Supreme Court care more about free speech for the wealthy than about political corruption?”

The case, McComish v. Bennett, challenges part of Arizona’s public financing law, which was enacted to combat corruption after a highly publicized scandal.

Wealthy, privately financed political candidates and outside groups attack the provision, which provides extra “trigger funds” to publicly funded candidates when their opponents exceed specified limits. They say the provision violates their First Amendment rights.

Hasen examines the arguments and the Supreme Court’s record and concludes:

“Five conservative justices on the Supreme Court appear to have no problem with the wealthy using their resources to win elections?even if doing so raises the danger of increased corruption of the political system.”

Justice at Stake has urged the high court in an amicus brief to uphold the constitutionality of the provision. The brief says elected courts would be gravely threatened by outside influence if the provision is struck down. Four states have adopted voluntary public financing of appellate court elections, and each has adopted the kind of ?trigger funds? provision challenged in McComish.

You can also learn more about the case from Gavel Grab and from a Justice at Stake resources page about it.

Full post as published by The Gavel on March 25, 2011 (boomark / email).