The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down a key provision of Arizona’s clean elections law in a decision expected to further arm opponents of a Maine law that awards public money to candidates facing well-heeled opponents in state races.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court’s conservative majority sided with plaintiffs who argued that Arizona’s matching funds provision violated the First Amendment. The majority said that wealthy campaign contributors could be reluctant to donate if they knew their money could be matched by a candidate backed by public dollars.

The First Amendment argument was set up by the court’s landmark “Citizens United” decision in 2009, another ideologically divided ruling that removed federal spending caps on businesses and unions. The court’s majority ruled that campaign donations were the equivalent of free speech, thereby setting legal precedent that limits government’s ability to level the playing field in elections.

Chief Justice John Roberts on Monday referenced “Citizens United” several times during his majority opinion in the Arizona case.

“Laws like Arizona’s matching funds provision that inhibit robust and wide-open political debate without sufficient justification cannot stand,” Roberts wrote.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the court’s dissenting opinion and argued that the Arizona law created “less corruption” and “more speech.” She wrote that the law made candidates accountable to a broader constituency rather than fewer wealthy donors.

“The people of Arizona might have expected a decent respect for those objectives,” she wrote.

Monday’s court decision is expected to impact Maine’s 15-year-old Clean Election Act. The law went into effect in 2000 and became the model for similar legislation in other states, including Arizona.

The ruling will also likely benefit the plaintiffs suing the state over the matching funds provision in Maine’s clean elections law.

The suit was filed on behalf of the leadership political action committee of state Rep. Andre Cushing, R-Hampden, the House majority whip. A U.S. District Court judge in December granted a stay in the case pending the outcome of the Arizona decision. 

While supporters of Maine’s Clean Election Act decried the Supreme Court’s decision, the ruling was not unexpected. The Legislature this session has already passed a resolution that creates a study commission to review how Maine will adapt its law to Monday’s ruling.

Given the decision and the pending challenge to the matching funds trigger by Cushing’s PAC, it would appear that the provision could be scrapped or changed significantly when the Legislature reconvenes in January of 2012.

The Maine Ethics Commission will lead the study group adapting Maine’s law to Monday’s ruling. The commission is expected to report its findings to the Legislature’s Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee by mid-October.

Jonathan Wayne, the executive director of the Maine Ethics Commission, said Monday that he was unsure how the state would realign its matching funds provision while ensuring that Clean Election Act remains attractive to candidates.

Like Arizona, Maine’s matching funds piece allows a publicly-funded candidate to receive additional MCEA money if their privately-financed opponent raises significant money or receives contributions from outside PACs or parties.

Wayne said matching funds accounted for about 24 percent of total payments in legislative races during the 2010 election. MCEA operates on a budget of about $2 million.

Wayne estimated that roughly 80 percent of legislative candidates have used the program in recent elections.

Sen. John Patrick, D-Rumford, blasted the decision saying, “the Supreme Court just sanctioned” the role of “money and corruption” in legislative politics and campaigns. 

“They (the Supreme Court) just gave a bigger voice to corporations and the wealthy and silenced the average Joe who wants to serve in political office,” he said. “… Maine Clean Elections helped level the playing field so the average Joe can compete and win in an election. How is anybody supposed to penetrate the sphere of money and influence now?”

Patrick ran as a MCEA candidate in 2010, receiving approximately $35,000. Patrick was also one of several candidates who received matching funds last year.

The court’s decision is specific to the matching funds trigger and Roberts wrote that the decision does not “call into question the wisdom of public financing as a means of funding political candidacy.”

Wayne, citing the MCEA’s apparent popularity with Mainers and widespread use by legislative candidates, said he did not think the ruling signaled support for a larger effort to end public financing in elections.

Opponents of the law argue that it increases the amount of money spent in elections while doing little to curb the influence of outside donors. Wayne said the increase in legislative campaign spending could also be attributed to a national trend that reaches states without clean election laws like Maine.

The Legislature overwhelmingly defeated a bill that would have repealed the MCEA. The House voted 112-33 against repeal. Fifteen of the Republican representatives who favored repeal ran as MCEA candidates in 2010.

smistler@sunjournal.com

Copy the Story Link