The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019

Campaign Finance After Supreme Court Decision

In an unsurprising decision, the Supreme Court yesterday ruled that Arizona’s matching-funds form of public campaign finance was unconstitutional. The Arizona law provided candidates who opted for public financing with as much money as their privately-financed candidates managed to raise. The intent of the law was clear: to level the playing field, so that rich candidates and their wealthy backers couldn’t simply buy elections.

And it was this intent the Supreme Court objected to. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts argued that when it comes to political speech, “the guiding principle is freedom— the “unfettered interchange of ideas”—not whatever the State may view as fair.” The freedom for the wealthy to massively outspend their opponents, which Roberts believes is a form of free speech, seems more important than making sure elections are fair. Justice Kagan, in a forceful dissent, argued first that the Arizona law does not limit free speech, but to the contrary, “what the law does — all the law does — is fund more speech.”

So where does this leave other campaign finance laws? The good news, says U.C.-Irvine Law professor Richard Hasen, “is that the Court did not level a death blow to public financing laws. Instead, it said that the decision of cities, states, or Congress enact public financing is ‘not our business.’” The five conservatives on the Court only objected to the matching-funds-of-rich-opponents provision of the law. This is not the only public campaign-finance scheme available.

New York City, for example, uses a system that provides candidates with six times whatever they manage to raise from small donors. This encourages candidates to raise money from many small donors than a few large ones. Zephyr Teachout, associate professor at Fordham Law, believes New York’s law can become a model for the nation. She suggests that “what we’ll see in coming years is more of this: a single-minded focus of reformers on passing $4-to-$1, $5-$1, and even $10-$1 matching funds laws.” But Hasen isn’t quite so optimistic.

Would the New York model survive a First Amendment attack before the Roberts Supreme Court? It is hard to say. On the one hand, because the multiple match does not give additional money based upon opponent spending, it is not directly contrary to today’s holding. And the court has said that public financing is “not our business.” But such plans may be doomed if the court views them as “leveling the playing field,” an equality rationale for campaign finance laws that the court majority has now rejected in three straight cases.

If the New York model is ruled unconstitutional, all that will remain is the lump-sum model, in which the government provides a publicly financed candidate with a small amount of money, regardless of how much they or their privately-financed opponents raise. The problem with this system is that candidates will not participate in it since their privately-financed opponents can easily outspend them. As Justice Kagan points out in her dissent, Barack Obama raised over $750 million through private fundraising and only would have been eligible for about $100 million through the government’s lump-sum public financing system. If he’d chosen public financing, he almost certainly would have lost.

At least the court’s decision in Arizona should slow down James Bopp, the conservative lawyer who wants all campaign finance laws ruled unconstitutional. Bopp has filed dozens of lawsuits seeking to overturn laws that limit the campaign contributions that people and corporations can make to candidates. Thanks to his efforts, a judge in Virginia recently ruled that corporations should be able to make unlimited donations to candidates. But this Supreme Court ruling should put a stop to this. “Today’s language from the Supreme Court,” according to Hasen, “should solidify the constitutionality of contribution limit laws, at least for now.”

Yesterday’s decision, like Citizens United, will make it easier for wealthy candidates and their corporate backers to buy elections. This invites more candidates like Ron Johnson, the self-funded Tea Partier who spent almost $9 million of his personal fortune to defeat veteran Senator Russ Feingold in Wisconson, before receiving $10 million from the company he works for. But the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled that all campaign finance laws are unconstitutional—yet. [Room for Debate]



Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Mohammed bin Salman, left, and Donald Trump

Youtube Screenshot

It’s not often that an article in Golfweek sets the tone for the actual week, but on Saturday the premier journal of hitting small balls with sticks noted continuing problems for the nascent LIV Golf tour. The schedule of tournaments isn’t full. The roster of big name players that LIV needs to make itself seem a legit competitor to the 93-year-old PGA Tour have failed to materialize. The team-based structure of LIV has failed to create the kind of rivalries that the creators suggested would help raise interest in the new offering.

However, all those concerns could turn out to be minor. That’s because a court case in California, where LIV has filed an antitrust suit against the PGA, has gone in a direction that LIV definitely, definitely did not want. While fighting back against this suit, the PGA has sought to compel discovery about the real sources behind the fund picking up the ticket on LIV’s considerable expenses. As it happens, a slip of the tongue from a LIV attorney during the trial revealed that the fund owns 93% of LIV Golf and covers all of its expenses.

Keep reading...Show less
Solomon Pena
Youtube Screenshot

Fox News has almost completely neglected to cover breaking news developments in a series of shootings that targeted the homes of multiple Democratic officials in New Mexico, neglecting a story that would potentially call further attention to the network’s own promotion of conspiracy theories about voter fraud.

On Monday, an Albuquerque SWAT team arrested Solomon Pena, naming him as the suspected “mastermind” behind a series of drive-by shootings at the homes of four local Democratic elected officials, including two county commissioners as well as the incoming speaker of the state House. Nobody was injured in the shootings, but in one instance bullets went through the bedroom of a 10-year-old girl while she was asleep.

Keep reading...Show less
{{ }}