Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett
564 U.S. ____ (2011) (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's public campaign financing system that provides additional funds to a participating candidate in direct response to the campaign spending of their privately financed opponent or independent expenditure groups substantially burdens political speech and violates the First Amendment.
Facts:
- In 1998, Arizona voters passed the Citizens Clean Elections Act, creating a voluntary public financing system for state office campaigns.
- To become eligible, candidates had to collect a specified number of five-dollar contributions and agree to spending limits and other campaign restrictions.
- Eligible candidates who opted into the system received an initial grant of public funds for their campaign.
- If a privately financed candidate's spending, combined with expenditures from independent groups supporting them, exceeded the initial public grant, the publicly financed candidate would receive additional state funds.
- These 'matching funds' were awarded on a roughly dollar-for-dollar basis for spending by the privately financed candidate or supportive independent groups.
- The total amount of public funds a candidate could receive, including matching funds, was capped at three times the initial grant.
- John McComish and other candidates, along with the Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC and other independent groups, chose to use private financing for their campaigns.
- Their fundraising and spending activities triggered the matching funds provision, providing additional public money to their political opponents.
Procedural Posture:
- Several candidates and independent expenditure groups, including the Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC and John McComish, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, challenging the matching funds provision of the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act.
- The District Court agreed with the plaintiffs, finding the provision was a substantial burden on speech that was not justified by a compelling state interest, and entered a permanent injunction against its enforcement.
- The State of Arizona appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, holding that the provision imposed only a 'minimal burden' on First Amendment rights and was substantially related to the state's important interest in reducing political corruption.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the matching funds provision of Arizona's Citizens Clean Elections Act, which grants additional public funds to a candidate when the spending of their privately financed opponent and supportive independent groups exceeds a certain threshold, violate the First Amendment rights of the privately financed candidates and independent groups?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
Yes, Arizona's matching funds scheme substantially burdens protected political speech without serving a compelling state interest and therefore violates the First Amendment. The provision forces privately financed candidates and independent groups to choose between exercising their right to engage in unfettered political speech and triggering a direct, automatic cash subsidy to their political opponents. This creates a penalty on speech that is even more burdensome than the asymmetrical contribution limits struck down in Davis v. Federal Election Comm'n. The state's asserted interest in 'leveling the playing field' is not a legitimate government objective, and its interest in combating corruption is not sufficiently served by a mechanism that burdens independent expenditures and a candidate's use of personal funds, both of which this Court has held do not give rise to quid pro quo corruption.
Dissenting - Justice Kagan
No, Arizona’s law does not violate the First Amendment because it does not restrict or burden speech; it subsidizes and creates more speech. The matching funds provision is a viewpoint-neutral subsidy designed to make a voluntary public financing system effective at combating political corruption by encouraging candidate participation. This mechanism is a modest, sensible adjustment to the public financing model upheld in Buckley v. Valeo, ensuring candidates have enough funds to be competitive without wasting public money. The majority wrongly equates a subsidy that fosters responsive speech with a penalty that burdens it, undermining a state's legitimate and compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its democratic process.
Analysis:
This decision significantly restricts the tools available to states for designing public campaign finance systems. By extending the logic of Davis v. FEC to a system of direct subsidies, the Court solidified its position that government efforts to 'level the playing field' in campaign spending are constitutionally suspect. The ruling makes it more difficult for states to incentivize participation in public financing programs, as a key feature—ensuring candidates remain financially competitive—is now unconstitutional. Future public financing systems will likely have to rely on larger, fixed, up-front grants, which may be less efficient and more costly to taxpayers.
