U.S. Supreme Court Blocks Release of AZ Campaign Matching Funds
A victory for Arizona taxpayers.
Regular readers know that the Illinois Policy Institute is no fan of funneling taxpayer dollars into politicians’ campaign war chests.
As part of a law passed in 2009, Illinois is studying whether taxpayer financing of campaigns should be implemented in the Prairie State. A breaking development from Arizona should be instructive:
PHOENIX – In a major victory for free speech, the U.S. Supreme Court this morning blocked the use of taxpayer money as campaign “matching funds.” The Court will decide whether to review a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
“This ruling vindicates the right of traditionally funded candidates to run their campaigns without the heavy hand of government helping their opponents,” said Nick Dranias, the Goldwater Institute’s lead attorney in the case known as McComish v. Bennett.
Under the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act, candidates who run with public campaign subsidies receive an almost dollar-for-dollar match each time a privately funded opponent raises money above a certain amount, and additional matches when independent expenditures are made against the subsidized candidate.
Today, the Supreme Court restored an injunction against the use of matching funds ordered earlier this year by U.S. District Judge Roslyn O. Silver.
“In a time of soaring budget deficits, the last thing taxpayers should be paying for are politicians’ campaigns,” said Darcy Olsen, president and CEO of the Goldwater Institute.
Watch Goldwater Institute attorney Nick Dranias discuss the pending U.S. Supreme Court decision on whether or not to halt the matching funds portion of the Clean Elections law.
There is no indication that spending taxpayer money on campaigns affects who is elected and how they perform. Illinois is continues to face a massive budget deficit. The last thing we need is a public financing system.