Arizona election finance law reveals high court rift
March 29th, 2011
11:05 AM ET
11 years ago

Arizona election finance law reveals high court rift

Washington (CNN) - The Supreme Court's conservative majority appeared to hold the cards Monday in a key campaign finance reform case involving an Arizona election law that would provide matching funds to underfunded candidates. The justices could continue a recent legal trend and strike down another effort at government restrictions on election spending.

The state law offers extra taxpayer-funded support for office seekers who have been outspent by privately funded opponents or by independent political groups. A key sticking point during the one-hour oral arguments was whether this law was designed to "level the playing field" through a public finance system, a legislative goal the court in the past has said is unconstitutional.


Filed under: Campaign finance • Supreme Court
soundoff (6 Responses)
  1. Steve Jackson

    Once again law makers putting it to the working people they tell unions they can't take dues and give to one party because some people don't like that person or party but now they want to take taxes and give to someone without regard to ho the tax payer likes as always a one-way street what ever the government wants not the people

    March 29, 2011 11:35 am at 11:35 am |
  2. Rick McDaniel

    The goal for the courts, is to, of course......see that there are no limits to the wealthy maintaining total control of all elections and offices. Have to keep out the riff-raff, you know.

    March 29, 2011 11:45 am at 11:45 am |
  3. DemoCommunists for a Better Way - Steal the Wealth, Bankrupt America

    Public money shouldn't be used to support ANY candidates. It is interference in the process. Why should MY tax money go to support some kook fringe candidate from the looney left? Part of the process is raising money from supporters of your cause and viewpoints. If you can't get their support then why are you even in the race? Enough of this "leveling the playing field" BS. You end up with a bunch of nitwits looking to get money and publicity when they don't have any chance of getting 100 votes, let alone win the election.

    March 29, 2011 11:46 am at 11:46 am |
  4. Rudy NYC

    Citizens United

    That case should have never made it to the Supreme Court, and if it did it should have been dismissed. The decision that effective grants businesses and corporations the rights of individual citizens is absurd in the extreme, and dangerous in the least. It will embolden the imperialistic factions in US society-yes, they exist-to make a power grab, or denial depending upon your point of view, which this issue in Arizona clearly demonstrates.

    Prediction. Since corporations have "equal" status as individual citizens, they will want the right to vote. Does that sound good to you? I don't see anything in the constitution that guarantees the rights to any business, corporation or economic group or entity.

    March 29, 2011 11:51 am at 11:51 am |
  5. GI Joe

    Some of these republican states are offering the greatest fascism possible to their citizens - and the ignorant jerks are falling for it.

    March 29, 2011 11:59 am at 11:59 am |
  6. Realistic

    a legislative goal the court in the past has said is unconstitutional. I say allow the mega rich with mega rich friends buy elections, oh crap, the SCOTU already did that so why would they allow matching funds to level the field, silly wabbit elections are for the rich and so is power. Once in awhile they allow us little peons
    join in and play, once in awhile.

    March 29, 2011 12:21 pm at 12:21 pm |