Archive for the 'Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett (McComish)' Category
First, Arizona legislators agreed to ask voters whether to get rid of public financing of elections for statewide and legislative posts.
Next, backers of public financing filed a lawsuit to block that 2012 vote on a constitutional amendment, according to an East Valley Tribune article.
The proposed constitutional amendment does not specifically repeal existing Arizona law but effectively voids it by barring the expenditure of public funds for political campaigns.
Republican state Sen. Steve Pierce said that Arizona’s budget deficit makes it “totally inappropriate for anyone to run on state funds when that money could be used someplace else,” an Arizona Daily Star article reported. Critics also say participants have abused the system, an Associated Press article said.
Backers of Arizona’s existing system, on the other hand, contend more people can run for elective office by using it, and it reduces the clout of deep-pocketed interests.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a case, McComish v. Bennett, challenging a key provision of the Arizona public funding statute. You can learn about it from Gavel Grab or from a Justice at Stake issues page on the case.
In these other dispatches about fair and impartial courts:
- Ronald Dworkin, a constitutional law scholar teaching at New York University, has written a commentary about the McComish v. Bennett public financing case before the Supreme Court. Entitled “More Bad Arguments: The Roberts Court & Money in Politics,” it is in the New York Review of Books. Click here to read about McComish in Gavel Grab.
- The U.S. Government Printing Office and the Federal Judiciary are launching a one-year pilot program to permit free public access to court opinions through GPO’s Federal Digital System. To learn more, view the announcement at GroundReport, a global news platform.
- Senior Judge Thomas G. Nelson of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has died at age 74, according to a press release from that court.
- If you want to listen to oral arguments Tuesday on the constitutionality of the federal health care overhaul law, in proceedings before the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, an audio link will be available Tuesday at 2 p.m., the court said in a release.
If the U.S. Supreme Court continues its tack toward allowing unrestricted money in politics, “the damage and corruption will be enormous,” a New York Times editorial warns.
The editorial focuses on a challenge to a key provision of Arizona’s law for public financing of political campaigns. At recent oral arguments, the court’s conservative majority was widely viewed as preparing to strike down the provision (see Gavel Grab). It allows publicly funded candidates to get additional dollars, called matching or “trigger funds,” when privately financed candidates or independent groups spend more.
The Times editorial traces back to the court’s landmark Buckley v. Valeo ruling in 1976 that upheld the public financing system for presidential elections. According to the editorial, the court did not rule that political money literally equals speech but that it enabled speech.
“Now the court’s conservative majority is again reshaping politics, ruling that what matters most for money and speech is their ‘fair market’ impact,’” the editorial warns, citing as evidence a 2008 ruling.
The Arizona “trigger funds” mechanism is “one of the most compelling innovations in the country,” the editorial states. Using it, “The state will match for a state-financed candidate what an opponent raises in private contributions up to triple the initial amount of state financing.” Read more
National media gave extensive coverage to Supreme Court arguments in a case challenging Arizona’s law for public financing of campaigns, and most pointed toward the same conclusion.
Judging from comments by justices, it appears almost inevitable that the five justices who made up the majority in last year’s landmark Citizens United ruling on campaign finance will strike down a key provision of Arizona’s law, according to these reports.
Under the provision, publicly funded candidates get additional dollars, called matching or “trigger funds,” when privately financed candidates or independent groups spend more.
“The likely result in the Arizona case…will be an incremental step and the fifth decision from the Roberts court cutting back on the government’s ability to regulate campaign financing,” suggested reporter Adam Liptak in the New York Times.
A USA Today article offered a similar analysis and the following assessment:
“Such a decision would not outright void state public financing systems. But it would undercut one of the incentives some states employ to entice candidates to use public financing and forgo large private contributions that might lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
Justice at Stake has warned in an amicus brief that an adverse ruling could gravely threaten fair courts, due to the “deluge of special interest money [that] is eroding public trust in America’s courts” and the strong promise for public financing as a viable reform. Four states have adopted public financing for judicial elections with laws that use a provision like Arizona’s. Read more
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.
The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in a case challenging Arizona’s law for public financing of campaigns, and the court appeared inclined to strike down a key provision of the law.
Under the provision, publicly funded candidates get additional dollars, called “trigger funds,” when privately financed candidates or independent groups spend more.
The justices “appeared skeptical of the Arizona law because it, in their view, is designed to level the playing field for all candidates,” the Associated Press reported. “The court has said such leveling often runs afoul of the First Amendment.”
At SCOTUSblog, veteran court watcher Lyle Denniston wrote that “it was more than evident on Monday that the Arizona system…was in deep constitutional jeopardy.”
Justice at Stake has filed an amicus brief and has warned that the case could undermine fair courts in four states, where similar laws protect judicial candidates from the impact of special-interest money.
A transcript of Monday’s oral arguments is available by clicking here.
William Maurer, a lawyer representing parties challenging the statute, said it improperly burdens political speech, restricts spending in elections, and was designed to “level the playing field” for candidates, according to a Reuters article.
Arizona’s public financing system violates candidates’ and independent groups’ free-speech rights when “each time they speak…the more their opponents benefit,” the high court was told, according to a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel report.
But the system’s defenders contended it results not in less political speech, but more. Public financing helps fight corruption, and the Arizona statute was drafted to make it a viable option for candidates, they said. Read more
With Supreme Court arguments scheduled Monday in an important campaign finance case, several major national newspapers have reported on the legal issues to be debated.
In McComish v. Bennett, the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to a provision in Arizona’s public financing law that critics contend violates free speech rights. Four states with public financing of judicial elections have a similar provision in their laws and could be affected by the ruling. Justice at Stake has urged the high court to uphold the constitutionality of the challenged provision, and Gavel Grab has written extensively about the case.
A Washington Post article about the case was entitled, “With Ariz. case, Supreme Court takes up campaign finance issue again.” “Arizona election law heads to Supreme Court,” declared a Los Angeles Times headline. The Christian Science Monitor published an article headlined, “Supreme Court to decide Arizona’s unique campaign financing law.”
On the eve of oral arguments before the Supreme Court, a New York Times editorial says an Arizona public financing mechanism should stand, and the editorial points to the law’s impact on fair courts.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday morning in McComish v. Bennett, which seeks to throw out the provision. The Times editorial was not alone in commentary spotlighting the case’s implications for state courts.
Justice at Stake has filed an amicus brief and has warned that the case could undermine the courts in four states, where similar laws protect judicial candidates from the impact of special-interest money; the brief was also signed by 13 former state Supreme Court justices and a former trial judge. One national media commentary linked to the JAS brief.
The Times editorial is entitled “Arizona’s Boon to Free Speech.” It says the public financing mechanism provides public funds to qualifying candidates in ways that “support, expand and promote political speech, carrying out a central purpose of the First Amendment.” The editorial adds about the provision:
“It has the support of respected former state judges who know that this and similar public financing mechanisms are the best way to eliminate corruption from state judicial elections. It deserves the Supreme Court’s strong endorsement.” Read more
Top legal officials in Iowa, where voters dumped three state Supreme Court justices last year over a ruling that permitted same-sex marriage, are examining ways for states to restore public trust in the courts.
They’ve taken their concern to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear oral arguments Monday in a case challenging part of a public financing law from Arizona.
Iowa’s attorney general, Thomas J. Miller, and solicitor general, Mark E. Schantz, asked the court in an amicus brief to affirm the constitutionality of the provision — and they suggest they have an eye on public financing:
“We wish to share our view that public financing of state elections should remain available as a tool to restore public confidence.”
“In states with elected judges, campaigns heavily financed by the plaintiffs’ bar on the one hand, and the defense bar, insurance companies and other large organizations with important business before the courts on the other, have surely eroded public confidence in the fundamental concept of equal justice before the law.”
“Whether Iowa will follow the lead of other states that provide public financing in judicial elections is unclear, but some form of it might well be considered an appropriate means of restoring confidence.”
Joining Iowa in its amicus brief were Connecticut, Maryland, New Mexico and Vermont. Justice at Stake has made similar arguments in its amicus brief to the court, joined by 13 former state Supreme Court justices and a former trial court judge. “Public financing eliminates the need for judges to ‘dial for dollars’ from major contributors, many of whom appear before them in court. It is therefore one of the most powerful reforms in shielding courts from special-interest influence,” the JAS brief says.
“McComish is important to the future of public financing, and to the future of courts that are seen as fair and impartial,” said Bert Brandenburg, JAS executive director, in a press release. Read more
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.” Read more