Legal News

High Court Signals Arizona Campaign Law May be Doomed

By Ashby Jones

Monday morning, we pregamed the Supreme Court arguments in a case concerning a campaign-finance law in Arizona.

The law, called the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act, provides subsidies to state-office candidates who agree to take no business, union or political party money and accept no more than $140 from an individual supporter. If a nonparticipating opponent spends more than a preset amount, the state provides matching funds to a participating candidate.

Conservative political candidates and political groups contend that the law deters nonsubsidized candidates from spending as much money as they wish for fear of triggering additional funding for their opponents. And that, they argue, violates their First Amendment rights.

According to this story by the WSJ’s Jess Bravin, during argument on Monday, the conservative justices on the court voices skepticism over the provision.

“Each time they speak, the more work that they do, the more their opponents benefit,” said William Maurer, an attorney representing the challengers. “Their speech is turning into the mechanism by which their political goals are undercut.”

That argument resonated with conservative justices, who view political spending as equivalent to political speech, and thus entitled to strong constitutional protection. Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that fear of triggering those additional funds would deter candidates and their independent supporters from spending-and thus speaking-more to win elections.

“The effect may well be . . . ‘I’m not going to spend the money,’ and so the other candidates don’t get the money, and you have less speech,” the chief justice said.

The court’s liberals, however, have seen campaign-finance regulations as ways to promote fair elections, and they saw few problems with Arizona’s system. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg observed that the court in 1976 upheld the post-Watergate federal law providing public funds for presidential campaigns. “The justification for it was that it increased rather than decreased speech,” she said.

The case turns on the fine line the court has drawn in campaign finance law, which permits measures that fight political corruption, but bars those intended to “level the playing field” among candidates. That came into sharp relief in one exchange, when Mr. Maurer said the Arizona law’s purpose is “to level the playing field.”

“I think the purpose of this law is to prevent corruption,” interjected Justice Elena Kagan.

But Justice Anthony Kennedy, a swing vote on some issues, has formed a solid block with other conservatives as they have rolled back campaign finance regulations. He seemed inclined to do so again Monday.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on March 29, 2011 (boomark / email).