Political candidates in Arizona will no longer be able to count on a government subsidy if they fall behind in campaign donations. A federal judge ruled that the system violated the free speech rights of privately funded candidates. -DB
January 20, 2010
By Paul Davenport
PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona’s system of providing extra campaign cash to publicly funded candidates who are outspent by privately funded opponents or targeted by independent groups was declared unconstitutional yesterday by a federal judge.
In a case with high stakes for state election candidates from governor to legislator, U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver ruled that so-called matching funds infringe on the free-speech rights of privately funded candidates and their contributors.
Under the order, publicly funded candidates would receive only their initial funding for the primary and general election campaigns. Privately funded opponents would be free to raise and spend higher amounts without indirectly helping their rivals.
Silver delayed implementation of her order for 10 days, allowing the state’s public-finance system time to appeal her ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A state official said the commission that oversees the system would meet today to consider filing an appeal that would include seeking a longer stay.
Todd Lang, executive director of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, said the timing of the ruling was disturbing because most candidates have already chosen their funding methods.
“If it came back in August, candidates would have had clear instructions on how to proceed,” he said.
The so-called Clean Elections finance system was approved by Arizona voters in 1998 and first implemented in the 2000 elections.
Clint Bolick, a Goldwater Institute attorney who helped represent some of the Republican legislators and others who challenged the matching-fund system, called the ruling “a sweet vindication of First Amendment rights.”
The order should be allowed to take effect because Silver said in a 2008 preliminary ruling in the case that matching funds were unconstitutional, Bolick said.
“All along, the state has argued that the candidates need certainty. All an appeal of the injunction will mean is it will take longer for candidates to know the lay of the land,” Bolick said.
The ruling could have “dire consequences” for the approximately 70 candidates who have signed up to run with public campaign funding, said Secretary of State Ken Bennett, an appointed Republican who is running with public funding for his current office.
A campaign spokesman for Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, who is running with public funding, said the ruling was anticipated and would have no immediate impact on the campaign.
“We have to let the process play out,” said the spokesman, Doug Cole. “Until then we will continue to operate our campaign as we always have.”
Tucson attorney John Munger, a rival candidate for the Republican nomination for governor, welcomed the ruling, saying it recognized that matching funds violated his free-speech rights.
Initial funding allotments for gubernatorial candidates in 2010 are $707,447 in the primary election and $1,061,171 in the general election. Corresponding amounts for legislative candidates are $14,319 and $21,479.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press
Copyright 2010 First Amendment Center