Great news — The U.S. Supreme Court had decided to hear a challenge to Arizona’s supposedly “clean,” but actually speech-inhibiting, elections law. See, Supreme Court to Review Arizona Campaign Finance Law.
Here’s a FW post from November on the challenge —
Think that “clean” elections laws keep elections, well, fair and clean? You might be surprised. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering an Institute for Justice challenge to the fairness of Arizona’s supposedly clean election laws.
Here’s a video from the IJ entitled, “The Dirty Game of AZ’s “Clean Elections.” Below the video, I have placed the part of the text of a web release about what’s a stake: privately-funded candidates lose out as taxpayer money drowns out the message of candidates who rely on their own supporters’ voluntary contributions rather than government money.
Arlington, Va. – On, Tuesday, Nov. 23, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to decide whether to hear a challenge by the Institute for Justice to Arizona’s “Clean Elections” Act in the case of Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett. Actions taken by the High Court earlier this year lead many to believe there is a better-than-average chance the Court will accept this case for review.
For a brief, funny video explaining how the “Clean Election” system rigs political races in favor of government-funded candidates, visit: www.ij.org/AZCleanElectionsVideo.
Arizona’s “Clean Elections” Act gives public money to politicians to run for office and squelches the free speech of independent groups, as well as candidates who choose to forgo taxpayer dollars and instead raise their own funds for their campaigns. For every dollar an independent group opposing a publicly financed candidate or a traditionally funded candidate spends above a certain amount, the government hands taxpayer dollars over to the publicly financed candidates in the race. This allows the government-subsidized candidate to “match” the spending – and thus the speech – of the independent group or privately funded candidate opposing him. The harder an independent group or traditionally financed candidate works, the more the government-subsidized candidate benefits. The Act curbs speech, discourages participation and limits what voters will hear about politics.