Litigation

AZ Public-Finance Order Sparks Alarm

By Peter Hardin

The Supreme Court’s emergency order blocking release of matching dollars to publicly funded candidates in Arizona continues to spark alarm from editorial boards.

The future of a voluntary public financing plan in Connecticut is threatened by the high court’s action, warns an editorial in New London’s The Day newspaper. The editorial protests “judicial activism from the right” and voices concern the Supreme Court could go further:

“Now, with its action in Arizona, the court appears poised to dismantle state laws that provide public financing to candidates. These progressive public-financing laws are an alternative to the traditional method of bankrolling campaigns, a system that forces candidates to kowtow to powerful special interest groups for funding, and then makes them beholden to these interests for their political survival.”

In the face of such forces, campaign finance reform backers “cannot surrender,” the editorial adds:

“They must seek new approaches to balance the election process so that money alone is not the determinate factor. But it will not be easy given a Supreme Court majority intent on imposing its will on the democratic process.”

The controversial Arizona provision distributes additional taxpayer dollars to publicly-funded candidates if their privately-funded opponent or independent political groups exceed a spending limit set by the state. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the provision last month, and foes are seeking a reversal by the Supreme Court.

An editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer also is critical of the Supreme Court’s emergency order. “Unless the court shifts its course,” it says, “the country is headed for a system of elections in which big-money donors will dominate more than ever.

You can learn more in Gavel Grab, or check out Justice at Stake’s issues page about public financing of judicial elections.

Full post as published by The Gavel on June 15, 2010 (boomark / email).