The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a temporary block of an Arizona state law that has provided state funds for candidates running for state and local offices, according to the Washington Post.
The Arizona Clean Elections law–adopted by Arizona voters in a 1998 referendum–allowed for Arizona political candidates to get financial assistance for their campaigns from the state if they amass a certain number of $5 donations and agree to not take any private special-interest donations. Accepting the public funds obligated those participating candidates to overall spending limits and to attend public debates.
In early 2010, a U.S. District Court judge struck down the Clean Election law as unconstitutional on the grounds that the free-speech rights of political candidates would be violated. However, the judge refused to block the state matching funds since the case was in the process of being appealed. In April, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court’s ruling and rejected an injunction filed by the Goldwater Institute and the Institute for Justice, two conservative organizations. In its ruling, the 9th Circuit stated that the good that the Clean Election program offered to the electoral process far outweighed the negative.
Leaders of the Goldwater Institute and the Institute for Justice, meanwhile, have applauded the decision of the Supreme Court, labeling it a “victory of freedom of political speech,” according to the Los Angeles Times. The central thesis of their argument was that the Arizona law violated the free speech of political candidates seeking to use private dollars to fund their campaigns.
As of last week, 132 political candidates in Arizona had registered to receive funds through the Clean Elections program for the 2010 election cycle. Arizona will be prevented from distributing additional public funds until the Supreme Court issues a final ruling on the constitutionality of the Clean Elections program.
David Sophrin is a legal intern with Project Vote.