Term: 2010
Docket: 10-238
Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club Pac, Et Al., Petitioners v. Ken Bennett, In His Official Capacity As Arizona Secretary Of State, Et Al.
- Pro
10-238 AZ FREE ENTERPRISE V. BENNETT DECISION BELOW: 611 F.3d 510 CONSOLIDATED WITH 10-239 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. CERT. GRANTED 11/29/2010 QUESTION PRESENTED: In Davis v. FEC, 128 S. Ct. 2759 (2008), this Court held that the First Amendment forbids the government from attempting to level the playing field in elections by raising contribution limits for candidates who are outspent by self- financed opponents. Arizona's Citizens Clean Elections Act achieves a similar result by providing extra subsidies in the form of "matching funds" to publicly financed candidates who are outspent by independent expenditure groups and privately financed candidates. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the First Amendment forbids Arizona from providing additional government subsidies to publicly financed candidates that are triggered by independent expenditure groups' speech against such candidates? 2. Whether the First Amendment forbids Arizona from providing additional government subsidies to publicly financed candidates that are triggered by the fundraising or expenditures by these candidates' privately financed opponents? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-15165, 10-15166
The U.S. Supreme Court case Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Ken Bennett, 2010, dealt with the constitutionality of a provision in Arizona's campaign finance law that provided additional funds to publicly financed candidates when their privately financed opponents or independent groups spent above certain thresholds. The petitioners were five past and future candidates for state office in Arizona and two independent expenditure groups who argued that this "matching funds" scheme violated their First Amendment rights by deterring them from raising and spending money on campaigns due to fear of triggering matching funds for opposing candidates. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that the matching fund provision substantially burdened political speech without serving a compelling state interest and was therefore unconstitutional.
In the dissenting opinion for Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Ken Bennett, Justice Elena Kagan argued that the majority had misinterpreted both precedent and First Amendment principles in striking down Arizona’s public financing law. She contended that far from being a penalty on speech, as the majority suggested, this law represented an effort to promote more political expression and democratic participation. The state was not trying to limit any individual's ability to contribute or spend money on campaigns but rather sought to provide resources for candidates who might otherwise be unable to compete effectively against well-funded opponents. In her view, such measures were necessary given the increasing costs of election campaigns and should have been upheld as constitutional under previous Supreme Court decisions allowing government efforts aimed at reducing corruption or its appearance in politics.
