• About Us
  • Activity
  • Advertising
  • Books
  • Business
  • Contact
  • Dashboard
  • EB5
  • Entertainment
  • feedback
  • Forgot Your Password?
  • Government
  • Home
  • Home 20723
  • Interviews
  • Login
  • Members
  • Meme generator
  • National
  • Nevada
  • Nevada News and Views
  • Newsmax
  • NN&V Ads
  • Opinion
  • Pick a New Password
  • Politics
  • Polls
  • Privacy Policy
  • Profile
  • Recent comments by me
  • Recent comments on my posts
  • Register
  • Submit post
  • Subscribe
  • Subscription Confirmation
  • Survey
  • Survey
  • Terms of Service
  • Today’s Top 10
  • Travel
  • Travel
  • Travel
  • Welcome!
  • Yop Poll Archive
Nevada News and Views
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • More
    • Opinion
  • Facebook

  • Twitter

  • Pinterest

  • RSS

Opinion

IJ Petitions Supremes to Slap Down AZ’s Speech-Control Law

IJ Petitions Supremes to Slap Down AZ’s Speech-Control Law
Chuck Muth
August 18, 2010

(Institute for Justice) – Today (August 17, 2010), the Institute for Justice is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review and reverse a decision of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Arizona Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, which upheld Arizona’s unconstitutional “matching funds” provision of the state’s “Clean Elections” law.

A federal district court in Arizona had struck down the law in January as a violation of the First Amendment, but the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision this past May. In an unusual move, the U.S. Supreme Court in June prohibited Arizona from giving away matching funds to politicians during the 2010 elections. (A detailed backgrounder for journalists is available at: http://www.ij.org/1228.)

Arizona’s “Clean Elections” Act gives public money to politicians to run for office, but it does not stop there. It attempts to “level the playing field” among candidates who take taxpayer money and candidates who choose to forego taxpayer dollars and raise their own funds for their campaigns, as well as the independent groups that support them. For every dollar a privately financed candidate or a group supporting that candidate spends above a certain amount, the government hands taxpayer dollars over to his opponent to allow him to “match” the spending—and thus the speech—of the privately funded candidate or groups supporting him. And the more these candidates or groups speak, the more their political and ideological opponents benefit.

“The Supreme Court must strike down this law because it allows the government to place its thumb on the scale in favor of politicians who receive government subsidies,” said Bill Maurer, the lead attorney in a legal challenge to the Arizona law brought by the Institute for Justice. “The Ninth Circuit badly erred in upholding this unconstitutional system. We are asking the Supreme Court to once and for all stop the harm this system does to the free speech rights of privately financed candidates and independent groups that support them.”

“Matching funds violate the First Amendment rights of candidates, citizens and independent groups,” said Paul Avelar, staff attorney for the Institute’s Arizona Chapter. “The government may not give a fundraising advantage to one candidate at the expense of his or her opponents. The point of the Clean Elections Act is to limit spending on speech—and thus limit political speech—and that is exactly what it does.”

The Ninth Circuit’s decision was so inconsistent with protections for free speech in campaigns that since the decision came out on May 21, 2010, two federal appellate courts—the Second Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit—have refused to follow it. In those cases, these courts struck down matching funds systems in Connecticut and Florida.

“The split among the federal appellate courts means that whether the government gets to ‘level’ your speech or not depends on what state you live in,” continued Maurer. “It is precisely situations like these where the Supreme Court typically acts to create a uniform rule across the country.”

The issue of whether these kinds of matching funds systems are constitutional is one of national importance. In addition to Arizona, Maine also provides public financing and matching funds for all state offices. Eight other states provide public financing and matching funds for some state offices. Many more states have considered adding such a system. Moreover, the expansion of these systems is a top priority for well-funded, politically influential special interest groups who want more government involvement in elections. Such systems, which seek to replace America’s traditional system of private support for politicians with a new system that is government directed and funded, are becoming more commonplace and proponents seek to make it the norm in all U.S. elections.

Arizona’s system suppresses political activity while providing none of the grandiose benefits promised by its proponents. Tim Keller, executive director of the IJ Arizona Chapter, noted, “For a decade, this Act has warped Arizona’s politics and produced a system where our elections are more partisan and dirtier than ever. Half of Arizona’s voters don’t know the system exists and those who are aware of it, don’t understand it. Rather than ‘cleaning up’ Arizona’s elections, all the system has done is create complex rules to regulate political activity, suppress speech, and further distance politicians from the people they are supposed to represent.”

Public funding advocates often make bold claims about the benefits of these systems, but scientific evidence supporting these claims is scarce. David M. Primo, an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Rochester, recently compared the claims and promises made by public funding advocates with the actual evidence. He concluded that the evidence demonstrates that public funding programs have delivered few, if any, of the benefits promised by their promoters, and they have certainly not resulted in the fundamental transformation and rebirth of confidence in government the promoters sought. On the other hand, Primo found that the cost of such programs—not only in terms of their negative effect on the timing and nature of political speech in the states with such programs, but also in terms of wasted public resources—is demonstrable and real. In other words, public funding is a program that promises much, delivers little, and raises real constitutional and policy problems. Primo’s research brief is available at: http://www.ij.org/3466.

The Institute for Justice’s clients in the case—Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett—are two independent expenditure groups and two elected officials who prefer to run privately financed campaigns. Specifically, IJ represents the Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC, the Arizona Taxpayers Action Committee, Arizona State Treasurer Dean Martin, and Arizona State Representative Rick Murphy.

Also filing a request for review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision is the Goldwater Institute, which represents privately financed candidates challenging the law. IJ has requested that the Supreme Court accept both requests and consolidate its review in order to consider the full range of claims against the law in one proceeding.

The Court is expected to act on the IJ’s petition for review sometime during its fall session.

The Institute for Justice defends First Amendment freedoms and challenges burdensome campaign finance laws nationwide. IJ recently won a landmark victory for free speech in federal court on behalf of SpeechNow.org, an independent group that opposes or supports candidates on the basis of their stand on free speech. IJ also won recent victories for free speech in Florida when a federal judge struck down the state’s broadest-in-the-nation “electioneering communications” law and in Washington when it stopped an attempt to use the state’s campaign finance laws to regulate talk-radio commentary about a ballot issue.

Prev postNext post

Related Items
Opinion
August 18, 2010
Chuck Muth

Related Items

More in Opinion

Amodei Statement on Debt Ceiling Bill

Chuck MuthJune 1, 2023
Read More

Tark: Trans “Rights” … and Wrongs

Chuck MuthMay 26, 2023
Read More

Stone: The Truth About AB 250: Will Patients Really Benefit?

NN&V StaffMay 26, 2023
Read More

“Ungrateful Miscreants”: Miller, Segerblom Insult Local Small Business Owners

NN&V StaffMay 24, 2023
Read More

Quarter-Million Dollar Ad Campaign Targets Nevada Legislators for Trapping Hispanic Families in Unsafe Schools

NN&V StaffMay 22, 2023
Read More

Nevada News & Views: May 20, 2023

NN&V StaffMay 20, 2023
Read More
Scroll for more
Tap

Subscribe Free By Email

Looking for the best in breaking news and conservative views? Let Chuck do all the work for you! Subscribe to his FREE "Muth's Truths" e-newsletter.

* indicates required
Nevada News and Views
Nevada News & Views is an educational project of Citizen Outreach Foundation, a non-partisan IRS-approved 501(c)(3) organization. It is not associated or affiliated with any political party or group. Nevada News & Views is accessible by the public at no cost. It funds its operations through tax-deductible contributions from donors and supporters and does not accept government money or grants.

TAGS

Featured Article Muths truth

Copyright © 2023 Citizen Outreach | Maintained by VirtualAlly

Economic Diversification: What Do Companies Want?
Bureaucracy Gets a Bailout