Several states have provisions to subsidize candidates that voluntarily restrict themselves to small private donations, when opponents with heavy corporate financing run against them. Criminal corporations claim that violates the Constitution. SCOTUS hears oral arguments tomorrow. Will SCOTUS become a kangaroo convention, as they did in Citizens United?
Citizens United opened the door for campaign contributions. To counteract that law, the State of Arizona implemented a policy where if a candidates is running against major corporate donations it would make up the difference to the opponent. That policy is subject of oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court Monday…
As conservative Ninth Circuit judge Andrew Kleinfeld wrote in his concurring opinion rejecting constitutional arguments against the Arizona system, “there is no First Amendment right to make one’s opponent speak less, nor is there a First Amendment right to prohibit the government from subsidizing one’s opponent, especially when the same subsidy is available to the challenger if the challenger accepts the same terms as his opponent.” Similarly, Charles Fried, a solicitor general in the Reagan administration, argued in an amicus brief that it is the wealthy candidates and interest groups who “in reality are seeking to restrict speech.”
So you’d think that the challengers to the Arizona law would have a hard time in front of a court that declared, in Citizens United, that “it is our law and tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule.” But it doesn’t seem likely the court will see it that way. The court showed its hand back in June, when it took the unusual step of suspending the matching-funds portion of the Arizona law in the middle of the election, before it even agreed to hear the case, during a time when candidates (such as Gov. Jan Brewer) had already made the decision to opt in to the public financing system. A key factor that the court considers in deciding whether to grant such extraordinary relief is the likelihood that it is going to strike down the law at issue…
… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Capitol Fax>
The question is a matter of consistency. Will we see consistency in interpreting the law? That would uphold public financing, so I doubt that we will. Instead I expect that we will see consistency in siding with the rich and criminal corporations, law and Constitution be damned.
This should make it imperative that we cannot allow a Republican in the presidency until after the main extreme activist ideologues, Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are gone. If you are looking for a reason to vote, there it is.
8 Responses to “Will SCOTUS Nix Public Campaign Financing?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Well, until I stopped by for a browse here TC, I had no idea. Thank you for wake up! I’m of the same opinion as you…. the corporate side of the street has heavy backing in the political and government systems including the judicial. This blows. Hope we finally elect a candidates who follow through on campaign promises and bring some resistance to this endless spiral into the abyss. 😳
Hi Gwen! I agree, and failing that, at least elect Presidents who will not appoint the likes of the fascist four.
Justice Kennedy in Citizens Untied: “It is our law and tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule.” Well, except when we don’t like the consequences of “our law and tradition” hindering the wealthy and rich corporations from being able to buy politicians and elections.
If you recall, Arizona’s Citizens Clean Elections Act was passed in reaction to AZScam – where about 10% of Arizona legislators “sold their votes to the highest bidder, trading votes on a bill to legalize gambling for cash. Corrupt legislators came to meetings with empty duffel bags, expecting them to be filled with money.”
So it was a law that dealt with corruption – something our current SCOTUS now seems eager to embrace and foster.
http://theusconstitution.org/blog.history/?p=2851
PS: I’ve always gotten a good chuckle out of that formal SCOTUS portrait where the five assholes have their robes plastered with corporate logos
Nameless thank you for the background. It supports my point. That graphic is classic. You will se it again today.
Gee, one would imagine public funding of public elections for public office would fall under the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution. Instead we’re headed for corporate funded elections of corporate chosen candidates decided by corporate owned voting machines.
My blog is back, and apparently so is my attitude.
Welcome back, Dave. Both have been missed, but I still think you should escape blogger.
As disappointed as I am in this President, there’s no way in hell I’d miss an election. The people who thought they were “sending a message” by sitting out 2010 are dumbasses, pure and (especially) simple.
JR, they sent a message all right. The message was Walker, Snyder, Kasich, etc.