Campaign Finance & Election

Campaigns should be open and free, not prone to manipulation through government financing schemes. And now the U.S. Supreme Court agrees.

<p>Campaigns should be open and free, not prone to manipulation through government financing schemes. And now the U.S. Supreme Court agrees.</p>

The Goldwater Institute's Clint Bolick talked to Channel 10 just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of free speech and declared the matching funds provision of Arizona's Clean Elections law unconstitutional.

The Goldwater Institute's Clint Bolick talked to Channel 15 the day the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Goldwater Institute and struck down the matching funds provision of Arizona's Clean Elections law.

The Goldwater Institute earned a victory against the matching funds provision of Arizona's Clean Elections law in the U.S. Supreme Court. KTVK Channel 3 looks at why the High Court declared it unconstitutional.

Watch it here

The Goldwater Institute's Nick Dranias appeared live on Fox Business News' Freedom Watch to talk about the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the matching funds provision of Arizona's Clean Elections law.

Watch it here

The Goldwater Institute's Darcy Olsen joined KVOI's Bill Buckmaster to talk about Goldwater's Supreme Court victory in the Clean Elections case, and a number of other Goldwater Institute issues.

The Goldwater Institute's Nick Dranias appeared on the Legal Broadcast Network to talk about the U.S. Supreme Court declaring the matching funds provision of Arizona's Clean Elections law unconstitutional.

This morning, Chief Justice John Roberts issued his opinion on behalf of a 5–4 majority in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, Nos. 10-238 and 10-239. You may have heard the case called “McComish,” after the plaintiff now listed second in consolidated court filings.

The Supreme Court struck down the matching-funds provisions in the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act. (Campaign “reformers” learned long ago not to call such statutes the “Taxpayer Subsidies to Candidates Act.”)

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow, but not a fatal one, to public campaign financing, with a 5-4 decision striking down a central provision of an Arizona law.

The Arizona law offers public funds to state legislative and executive-branch candidates who abide by tight contribution and spending limits. Another provision gives additional dollars when publicly funded candidates face big-spending opponents or outside money groups — and that's what was rejected by Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority.

PHOENIX — Today, in a 5 to 4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decision striking down the matching funds provisions of Arizona’s taxpayer-funded campaign finance system known as Clean Elections.

In April 2011, the Arizona Legislature passed SCR1025 which allows voters to decide on a constitutional amendment that would ban taxpayer money to fund political campaigns. A month later, the Arizona Advocacy Network Foundation and several other organizations filed a lawsuit in an attempt to keep the referendum from being placed on the ballot or to narrow its application if passed. The Goldwater Institute—believing the Legislature has a right to refer constitutional amendments to the ballot and citizens have a right to decide them—has intervened on behalf of "No Taxpayer Money for Politicians," a ballot measure committee that was formed for the purpose of advocating for a 'yes' vote on the referendum.

 

 

Pages