# SCOTUS rules against Arizona campaign finance law **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 28, 2011, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164 "2011-06-28T17:33:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2011, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/21 "2011-06-28T21:59:39Z")
Guys, it’s not the first time I’ve said this, but I’m _really, really_ sorry I voted for G.W. Bush. Twice. My bad, seriously. I hate myself for it now. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/22 "2011-06-29T00:20:01Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > Public money which the legislature of Arizona has determined to be used for the purpose of equalizing campaign finance donations. Where do you get the idea that if public money is being spent for one purpose, they are required to spend an equal money on an opposing cause? And again, the money is not being spent “at the expense” of another. It’s at the expense of their revenue dollars, sure. But not at the expense of the other candidate. Sure it is. It’s giving one candidate access to public money but not the other candidate. It’s pitting the resources of the state of Arizona against the private resources of the candidates. The First Amendment doesn’t permit states to enter into political races like that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/23 "2011-06-29T00:22:54Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > And there seems to be a problem in this post of understanding that elections are not sports events; they are about governance, not becoming a champion. > > As such, of course the government, as an expression of the will of the people, generally, has an interest in ensuring that we, the voting public, have adequate information and access to as many sources of opinion and electoral choices as feasible, in order to make sound, informed judgement about who our elected officials will be and what they will be doing with our money and in our name. Fine. They can fund all candidates equally, then. But Arizona’s scheme does more than that. It gives more funds to one candidate than the other, merely because the shortchanged candidate has private funds to make up the difference. This, Arizona can’t do. It can provide an equal stipend to every candiate, to ensure that we, the voting public, have adequate information and access to as many sources of opinion and electoral choices as feasible. But it can’t try to equalize the total amount spent by only giving public money to the outspent candidate. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/24 "2011-06-29T00:38:08Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > But what First Amendment principles? I not only have a right to free speech, I also have a right to dictate that other people (in this case the People of Arizona) cannot “speak” (pay money) to my opponent? Arizona can pay money equally to all candidates, of course. It can’t pick one candidate to pay money to. > [@](#): > > By this logic, a tobacco company could argue that taxpayer-financed public health warnings are a violation of the company’s First Amendment rights, as they are unfairly competing against said tobacco company’s privately-financed free speech in favor of the “Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should” point of view. No. Because the government cannot take a position on which candidate is best for the state, but it can take a position on cigarettes being bad for you. _Central Hudson Gas & Electric v Public Service Commission_. > [@](#): > > And maybe **Bricker** is right–but I’m wondering if this expansive view of things will be applied across the board. For example, I’m sure **Bricker** will now concede that sweeping court-mandated restraints on school vouchers are needed to protect the First Amendment rights of people who disagree with the curriculum of the private schools in question–I mean, that’s _multiple_ clauses of the First Amendment there (free speech and both free exercise and establishment of religion). No. Because vouchers don’t implicate the First Amendment’s speech clause with anywhere near the same direct effect that political speech has. _Zelman v. Simmons-Harris._ ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/25 "2011-06-29T00:40:56Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > So, **Bricker** , what happened to all that stuff about how state governments (unlike the federal government, which is a limited government of enumerated powers) have “plenary power”? And such questions should be settled democratically, not by unelected judges with life appointments? > > It’s one thing for a person to say he thinks the law in question is unwise and should be repealed, but this law was struck down by the federal judicial system. It’s more than an unwise law. It’s a law that permits the state government to subsidize political speech from some persons but not others. That offends not only the First Amendment but the very foundations of our electoral system. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/26 "2011-06-29T01:17:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s more than an unwise law. It’s a law that permits the state government to subsidize political speech from some persons but not others. That offends not only the First Amendment but the very foundations of our electoral system. Even if it’s neutral in its application? The political speech isn’t being subsidized based on content, so it’s not state money going to advocate a particular cause. Anyone, regardless of their political views, is entitled to the money if they fit the requirement. It seems like the purpose of the law isn’t to squelch political speech, but rather to encourage it, by preventing a rich candidate from using his money to monopolize the political debate. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/27 "2011-06-29T01:34:43Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Even if it’s neutral in its application? The political speech isn’t being subsidized based on content, so it’s not state money going to advocate a particular cause. Anyone, regardless of their political views, is entitled to the money if they fit the requirement. It seems like the purpose of the law isn’t to squelch political speech, but rather to encourage it, by preventing a rich candidate from using his money to monopolize the political debate. It’s still a burden on speech. Even though no particular content is implicated, the mere fact that state-provided money is given to a political rival is prohibited. The government can’t use its power to ensure an “even playing field” of messages; people are free to use whatever money they can raise or spend to promulgate their own messages but cannot ask the government to subsidize those messages unless the government is willing to provide precisely the same subsidy to everyone. As far back as the 1970s, in _Miami Herald v. Torino_, the Court has struck down statutes that tried to “level” the playing field – that one by requiring a newspaper to provide “right of reply” space to a candidate who suffered criticism or attacks by that newspaper. The government’s role cannot be to make it easier for the poorer candidate to win, any more than it can help me win that dunking contest. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/28 "2011-06-29T01:48:34Z")
If I wish to give $100 to my preferred candidate, but know that the state will just give $100 to his opponent in response, that cancels out my speech and will make me not want to waste my money. That’s only one step removed from banning free speech and I can’t believe the outrage at this decision. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/29 "2011-06-29T01:59:17Z")
In _Miami Herald_, though, you had the state mandating publication. It was actively telling the newspaper what it had to print. That’s direct involvement in the press. This law doesn’t even mandate activity by any party. It just provides funds to candidates. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/30 "2011-06-29T02:13:18Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > It just provides funds to candidates. And what is the candidate going to do with those funds? Even if he buys a round of drinks on him, that’s still money that could/would have went to campaign expenses otherwise. You really can’t see the free speech problem here? Suppose a groundswell of public support grows around a candidate. So much so that people are taking every extra $20 out of their paycheck to help get this great guy elected. But he is running against an entrenched establishment candidate. Not only does he have the power of incumbency, but now the state is chipping in dollar for dollar against every one of these contributions. Honest to God, Stalin or Hitler would hold free elections with this kind of deck stacked in their favor.. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/31 "2011-06-29T04:20:06Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > If I wish to give $100 to my preferred candidate, but know that the state will just give $100 to his opponent in response, that cancels out my speech and will make me not want to waste my money. So instead you’ll pick up a placard and go out and help spread your preferred candidate’s message. Do you think Arizona law requires the state to pay other people to cancel you out? Donating money to a candidate equals speech in the same sense that sponsoring a racecar equals driving. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/32 "2011-06-29T04:30:14Z")
With all the unemployed people out there who could use money to gain employment, why should we pay for the politicians? I can’t believe that public campaign financing is considered a solution to anything. If you are rich, spend all you want. What has to be stopped are the bribes that are called campaign contributions. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/33 "2011-06-29T07:02:27Z")
The decision was wrong. The First Amendment guarantees everyone the right to free speech. Nobody’s speech is being infringed by somebody else speaking. And that’s the basis of the decision: the idea that my speech is somehow diminished if everyone else can speak as much as I do. Nobody was given an advantage. The point of the law was to ensure everyone had equal resources. And this law was enacted by the people of Arizona themselves. It wasn’t an act of the legislature - it was enacted as a voter initiative. So this was how the people of Arizona wanted to spend their money. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/34 "2011-06-29T08:58:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Fair?” > > No, not in the sense you mean it. > > If I were to have a slam-dunk competition with Blake Griffin, fairness would require that a cherry-picker helps me into position and random electric shocks are applied to Mr. Griffin’s body to slow him down. > > Otherwise it wouldn’t be fair. That’s not the sense that he means it. In fact, that’s precisely the opposite of the sense that he means it. If you are engaged in a sporting contest, the purpose (I would presume) would be to determine who was the better athlete. If one competitor can afford to buy a cherry picker and a shock collar for his opponent, and the other competitor cannot afford that equipment, then you are no longer having a contest to see who is the better athlete, and are now having a contest to see who can afford to buy the most toys. Now, it seems to me that, if the purpose of an election is to see which candidate’s ideas have the most support among the electorate, it makes good sense to institute a system that equalizes advantages that aren’t directly related to one’s ability to govern. Advantages like, “Inherited a lot of money from dad,” or “Is good buddies with the CEO of General Motors.” That’s equality of opportunity, not equality of results. Because the result that matters, in a political contest, is “Who wins,” not, “Who buys the most ads.” If we liberals\* were after equality of results, we’d be demanding that the loser in the race be given a political office, too. \*Incidentally, my impression is that Arizona is a fairly conservative state, and this law was passed by ballot initiative, so I’m not entirely clear how it’s liberals who are confused about “equality of opportunity.” > [@](#): > > The First Amendment doesn’t permit states to enter into political races like that. I don’t see anywhere in the first amendment that forbids this. Must be in one of those penumbras you’re always railing against. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/35 "2011-06-29T09:52:00Z")
And here we have another lesson in **Bricker** ism: Under it, it is unnecessary to go to all the expense and bother and drama and, worse, unpredictability of results with those antiquated “elections”. Just see who can raise the most money, and declare him the winner. This democracy stuff sure is hard to grasp for some, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/36 "2011-06-29T10:47:00Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > And here we have another lesson in **Bricker** ism: Under it, it is unnecessary to go to all the expense and bother and drama and, worse, unpredictability of results with those antiquated “elections”. Just see who can raise the most money, and declare him the winner. > > This democracy stuff sure is hard to grasp for some, isn’t it? I would like to say I expected better from you than this strawman, but I really didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/37 "2011-06-29T11:48:43Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > And here we have another lesson in **Bricker** ism: Under it, it is unnecessary to go to all the expense and bother and drama and, worse, unpredictability of results with those antiquated “elections”. Just see who can raise the most money, and declare him the winner. > > This democracy stuff sure is hard to grasp for some, isn’t it? **ElvisL1ves** , you should know the rules by now: attack the argument, not the poster. You have been failing to keep this in mind regarding **Bricker** and you need to shape up. > [@Mr.Moto](#): > > I would like to say I expected better from you than this strawman, but I really didn’t. Same here: this is also a personal comment. Please refrain in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/38 "2011-06-29T16:06:25Z")
I wonder if the New York Times will file a lawsuit asking that the New York Post be shut down. The Post, after all, is diminishing the Times’ freedom of the press by publishing a competing newspaper. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/39 "2011-06-29T16:17:17Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I wonder if the New York Times will file a lawsuit asking that the New York Post be shut down. The Post, after all, is diminishing the Times’ freedom of the press by publishing a competing newspaper. That’s an idiotic analogy. Let’s try an accurate one. The Times outsells the Post by, say, 3 to 1\*. So the Post has less freedom of speech than the Times (by your reasoning) Therefore, to make the playing field equal, the government should give the Post money to equal the difference in their sales. \*I made up this number. But there’s no doubt that the Times greatly outsells the Post. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/40 "2011-06-29T16:27:23Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > So instead you’ll pick up a placard and go out and help spread your preferred candidate’s message. Do you think Arizona law requires the state to pay other people to cancel you out? > > Donating money to a candidate equals speech in the same sense that sponsoring a racecar equals driving. Carrying placards doesn’t win elections in this day and time. Candidates need money for radio and TV ads. Money is certaintly speech in an age where it takes lots of it to be heard. Unless you believe that the first amendment only allows me to stand on the street corner and shout my beliefs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164.md?page=3)