Not all public campaign financing will raise Supreme Court ire

[alp227]

TW Farnam, Washington Post

The Supreme Court ruled this week that Arizona’s system of public campaign funding is unconstitutional, but the decision does not signal that the court is ready to reject all public financing for elections.

The finding focused on one aspect of the law, a trigger that increases money for publicly funded candidates who face high-spending challengers. Such attempts to “level the playing field” could discourage contributions or spending from some who fear their money will lead to more public funding for opponents, and therefore they violate the First Amendment, the court said.

The day after that ruling was announced, the court declined to hear a separate campaign finance case, a decision that drew less attention but signaled something just as significant: Not all forms of public financing will raise the ire of the justices. In that case, the court turned down plaintiffs challenging a Connecticut public financing law, leaving in place a lower-court decision upholding the statute.

“It gives some reason to hope that the Supreme Court is not on the war path to eliminate all forms of public financing,” said Tara Malloy, a lawyer with the Campaign Legal Center, which advocates for regulation of money in politics.

The most prominent proposal for public financing for congressional elections, the Fair Elections Now Act, doesn’t include an Arizona-style trigger. Instead, it calls for a five-to-one match of small contributions with government money for candidates who opt into the system and adhere to a limit of $100 for all campaign contributions.

That doesn’t mean that the proposed legislation is likely to be adopted — far from it, in fact, with Capitol Hill intent on cutting costs and long odds for any new government spending.

full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/not-all-public-campaign-financing-will-raise-supreme-court-ire/2011/06/29/AGNdIQrH_story.html

[zacherystaylor]

1. They still favor the rich

Even that little token exception doesn't change the fact that the Supreme Court has declared that the rich have unlimited rights to participate while the poor can continue to whisper. In fact in many cases when the rich use white collar crime to swindle the poor and the middle class they can use that money to pay off the politicians and even the Supreme Court as long as they call it a campaign contribution instead of openly calling it what it is, a bribe!