June 29 2011 at 03:44 PM
Network partners react to McComish ruling
The Supreme Court this week made its ruling in McComish v. Bennett, the case involving a “trigger funds” provision in Arizona’s campaign finance law that would allow publicly financed candidates to receive additional public funds if their opponents received private funds that exceeded certain amounts.
The Court ruled 5-4 that “trigger” provisions are in violation of the First Amendment. However, the court also held that public financing as a whole remains constitutional, as the state has “significant” interests in preventing corruption.
Network partners reacted to the ruling:
Justice at Stake issued a press release wherein executive director Bert Brandenburg said: “Today’s ruling is disappointing, but not fatal for America’s courts,” and that even though the trigger provision was struck down, the Court reaffirmed its position in support of public financing.
The Brennan Center for Justice said in a statement: “We regret the Supreme Court’s decision today to strike down a provision of the Arizona campaign law,” but added that “After the Court’s ruling today, one key fact is clear. Public financing remains Constitutionally strong,” and stated that public financing systems “can exist and thrive without the kinds of triggers in the Arizona law.”
The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign released a strong statement in opposition to the Court’s ruling: “While all is clearly not lost, today’s decision represents another step backward for the cause of clean elections. The Supreme Court completed the establishment of an unholy trinity in campaign finance jurisprudence. Money talks. Money can talk as much as it wants. Money should do all the talking. … The First Amendment is 45 words long. It does not say money is speech. Nowhere does the word money appear. Nowhere does it say that speech is a privilege that must be purchased at great expense. Nowhere does it say it is impermissible to try to enable those who are not outlandishly wealthy to be heard. The doctrines the court has established are judicial inventions that do not owe their origins to the Constitution or any state or federal law. They will not stand the test of time.”
Common Cause in Wisconsin examined the ruling’s potential impact on Wisconsin’s Impartial Justice act. Though the long term affects are unclear, in a press release Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause in Wisconsin, said: “This is not the ‘death knell’ for public financing as some predicted it would be. Far from it. And Wisconsin’s Impartial Justice Act was not completely undermined by today’s decision.”
The Illinois Campaign for Political Reform stated broke down the decision, stating that: “ICPR disagrees with the Court’s logic, that providing more funding for candidates somehow diminishes speech, or impinges on anyone’s First Amendment rights. Nonetheless, this is the framework the courts have given to us, and we are confident that public financing programs can work within these rules.” ICPR goes on to say that although the decision is a setback, it is important to note that public financing has not been eliminated.
National Common Cause has been covering the decision on their blog; they have a nice summary of the decision, as well as a bit of commentary where Common Cause president Bob Edgar says that the ruling is, “misguided” and that, “it is more critical than ever that we change the way we pay for our elections by moving to a small donor system that gives the public a voice back in our government.”
The Campaign Finance Institute also issued a press release emphasizing that while the decision did strike down trigger provisions, it is important to look at what the decision did not do, and it did not strike down public financing as a whole. In particular, the release said, “the Court also left the door wide open for other forms of public financing. Neither the pending congressional nor presidential public financing bills would be barred by the McComish decision. Public financing remains a viable policy option for empowering small donors.”
The Brennan Center for Justice said in a statement: “We regret the Supreme Court’s decision today to strike down a provision of the Arizona campaign law,” but added that “After the Court’s ruling today, one key fact is clear. Public financing remains Constitutionally strong,” and stated that public financing systems “can exist and thrive without the kinds of triggers in the Arizona law.”
The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign released a strong statement in opposition to the Court’s ruling: “While all is clearly not lost, today’s decision represents another step backward for the cause of clean elections. The Supreme Court completed the establishment of an unholy trinity in campaign finance jurisprudence. Money talks. Money can talk as much as it wants. Money should do all the talking. … The First Amendment is 45 words long. It does not say money is speech. Nowhere does the word money appear. Nowhere does it say that speech is a privilege that must be purchased at great expense. Nowhere does it say it is impermissible to try to enable those who are not outlandishly wealthy to be heard. The doctrines the court has established are judicial inventions that do not owe their origins to the Constitution or any state or federal law. They will not stand the test of time.”
Common Cause in Wisconsin examined the ruling’s potential impact on Wisconsin’s Impartial Justice act. Though the long term affects are unclear, in a press release Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause in Wisconsin, said: “This is not the ‘death knell’ for public financing as some predicted it would be. Far from it. And Wisconsin’s Impartial Justice Act was not completely undermined by today’s decision.”
The Illinois Campaign for Political Reform stated broke down the decision, stating that: “ICPR disagrees with the Court’s logic, that providing more funding for candidates somehow diminishes speech, or impinges on anyone’s First Amendment rights. Nonetheless, this is the framework the courts have given to us, and we are confident that public financing programs can work within these rules.” ICPR goes on to say that although the decision is a setback, it is important to note that public financing has not been eliminated.
National Common Cause has been covering the decision on their blog; they have a nice summary of the decision, as well as a bit of commentary where Common Cause president Bob Edgar says that the ruling is, “misguided” and that, “it is more critical than ever that we change the way we pay for our elections by moving to a small donor system that gives the public a voice back in our government.”
The Campaign Finance Institute also issued a press release emphasizing that while the decision did strike down trigger provisions, it is important to look at what the decision did not do, and it did not strike down public financing as a whole. In particular, the release said, “the Court also left the door wide open for other forms of public financing. Neither the pending congressional nor presidential public financing bills would be barred by the McComish decision. Public financing remains a viable policy option for empowering small donors.”
