# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/81 "2011-06-30T17:15:23Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > No, I think I accidentally cut some of my post before hitting submit. The point is that the Cruikshank court totally ignored the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment. > > [my bolding] > > A state’s infringement of freedom of speech _is_ a deprivation of liberty. Not as was understood when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, which would presumably be Thomas’ reference point. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/82 "2011-06-30T17:36:03Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > It’s not AUTOMATIC, some well-finance Pubbies lost in the last election, but it’s the sort of general principle that makes them the exception that proves the rule. Wrong again. > [@](#): > > The bestselling economics book, Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner has a section on the quickly diminishing marginal returns of election campaign spending. In this, they disprove the widely-held truism that ‘money buys elections’. First they admit that there is a correlation between money and politics: those candidates or parties that spend the most often win. But they dispute the commonly held assumption that the spending causes the win. Instead they point out that anticipated win - or possible win - will often attract the campaign money. When candidates obtain large amounts of money it is usually because they are seen to be the best candidate or the one mostly likely to win. Based on Levitt’s study of campaign spending by the same candidates against the same competitors over decades of US congressional elections, it was found that ‘the amount of money spent by the candidates hardly matters at all. A winning candidate can cut his spending in half and lose only 1% of the vote. Meanwhile, a losing candidate who doubles his spending can expect to shift the vote in his favor by only that same 1%’. The Freakonomics authors conclude that campaign spending has a very small impact on election outcomes, regardless of who does the spending. [Cite](http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2007/05/freakonomics_th.html). Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/83 "2011-06-30T18:51:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Far be it from me to use this sort of language in GD, but perhaps it’ll be ok if I am merely quoting someone else: You must not have read to the end of that column. > [@Cecil Adams](#): > > \*Dear Cecil: > > I hate to have to correct Cecil Adams, but the business about “the exception proves the rule” in the latest Straight Dope seems way wide of the mark. The proverb’s meaning must be expounded not in the context of natural or psychological law but of civil law. Alan Bliss, in A Dictionary of Words and Phrases in Current English, has the following to say about the origin of this phrase: “Exception probat regulam [Lat.], the exception proves the rule. A legal maxim of which the complete text is: exceptio probat [or (con)firmat] regulam in casibus non exceptis–`the fact that certain exceptions are made (in a legal document) confirms that the rule is valid in all other cases.'” > > The application is this. Suppose a law is stated in such a way as to include an exception, e.g., “Parking is prohibited on this street from 7 AM to 7 PM, Sundays and holidays excepted.” The explicit mention of the exception means that NO other exceptions are to be inferred. Thus we should take the Latin verb probare in the maxim to have the sense of “to increase the force of.” --Hugh Miller, Chicago\* > > Dear Hugh: > > Hmm. It grieves me to say this, but you’re right. It’s perfectly clear that **Evil Captor** is using the phrase in the manner described here, which Cecil approves of. The fact that a lower-spending candidate’s winning is considered exceptional (and therefore newsworthy) proves that the general rule is that the higher-spending candidate usually wins. That’s not to say he’s correct, I think the jury is still out, as far as I know. (I’m not inclined to take _Freakonomics_ as the last word on anything, nor any single study reported by media, though it’s an interesting datum.) But he does have a cogent point, which you missed. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/84 "2011-06-30T18:57:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not as was understood when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, which would presumably be Thomas’ reference point. You state this as if it is settled. I don’t agree. A lot of people argue that incorporation was the intent of the 14th Amendment at the time of drafting. And that the _Slaughterhouse Cases_ were simply wrongly decided. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/85 "2011-06-30T20:08:42Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > You must not have read to the end of that column. > It’s perfectly clear that **Evil Captor** is using the phrase in the manner described here, which Cecil approves of. The fact that a lower-spending candidate’s winning is considered exceptional (and therefore newsworthy) proves that the general rule is that the higher-spending candidate usually wins. Points to Alan Smithee’s post. “What he said.” > [@](#): > > That’s not to say he’s correct, I think the jury is still out, as far as I know. (I’m not inclined to take _Freakonomics_ as the last word on anything, nor any single study reported by media, though it’s an interesting datum.) But he does have a cogent point, which you missed. While I am in agreement with you in suspecting Freakonomics cites, to be fair to Shodan, much as it pains me, what we have is my unsupported word against an actual study cited by Shodan. However dubious, it’s better than my unsupported word. The thing is, even Freakonomics appears to concede a general tendency for the more well-financed campaign to win, their argument is that winning campaigns begets money. They are saying that we are confusing the cause with the effect. This seems dubious on the face of it: generally, funding of campaigns precede the elections. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/86 "2011-06-30T20:09:27Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > You must not have read to the end of that column. > It’s perfectly clear that **Evil Captor** is using the phrase in the manner described here, which Cecil approves of. The fact that a lower-spending candidate’s winning is considered exceptional (and therefore newsworthy) proves that the general rule is that the higher-spending candidate usually wins. > > That’s not to say he’s correct, I think the jury is still out, as far as I know. (I’m not inclined to take _Freakonomics_ as the last word on anything, nor any single study reported by media, though it’s an interesting datum.) But he does have a cogent point, which you missed. No, I did not. Cecil’s point (or his correspondent’s point, which Cecil accepts) was that in law, the enunciation of certain exceptions shows that those are the only exceptions in the law: when a general principle is stated, followed by exceptions A, B, and C, we cannot somehow infer exception D also exists, because we know that the drafters intended to create specific exceptions and no others: > [@Cecil](#): > > We need something that better conveys the import of this ancient maxim. I have just the thing–an illustration from the Roman orator Cicero, sometimes cited as the source of the legal doctrine in question. > > Cicero was defending one Bilbo. (No relation to Frodo.) Bilbo was a non-Roman who was accused of having been illegally granted Roman citizenship. The prosecutor argued that treaties with some non-Roman peoples explicitly prohibited them from becoming Roman citizens. The treaty with Bilbo’s homeboys had no such clause, but the prosecutor suggested one should be inferred. > > Nonsense, said Cicero. “Quod si exceptio facit ne liceat, ubi non sit exceptum …” Oops, I keep forgetting how rusty folks are on subjunctives. Cicero said, if you prohibit something in certain cases, you imply that the rest of the time it’s permitted. To put it another way, the explicit statement of an exception proves that a rule to the contrary prevails otherwise. That’s not at all a concept that would apply to **Evil Captor** ’s argument. His argument would be strongest if no under-financed candidate had ever won an election. Each subsequent example of one winning weakens his argument. There is never a case of one exception “proving the rule” he would have us adopt. No exceptions is his best case. One exception weakens his claim a bit. Two exceptions weakens it a bit more, and so forth. And **Shodan** ’s citation appears to provide more than two. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/87 "2011-06-30T20:18:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s not at all a concept that would apply to **Evil Captor** ’s argument. His argument would be strongest if no under-financed candidate had ever won an election. Each subsequent example of one winning weakens his argument. There is never a case of one exception “proving the rule” he would have us adopt. No exceptions is his best case. One exception weakens his claim a bit. Two exceptions weakens it a bit more, and so forth. It’s the fact that they ARE exceptions that proves the rule. Don’t you remember the huge fuss that was made over Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina’s losses in the last election when they were so very, very, very well funded? I’ll concede to Shodan’s cite, but not your argument. ---
**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 30, 2011, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/88 "2011-06-30T21:12:57Z")
What was the fuss? I remember stories about how that funding couldn’t overcome a massive Democratic registration advantage. Not much more than that. [Proof of the above - Democrats have a 13-point registration advantage over Republicans.](http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/ror-pages/15day-gen-10/hist-reg-stats.pdf) ---
**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 30, 2011, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/89 "2011-06-30T21:28:06Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > No, I think I accidentally cut some of my post before hitting submit. The point is that the Cruikshank court totally ignored the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment. > > A state’s infringement of freedom of speech _is_ a deprivation of liberty. That’s only true if you accept the premise that an infringement occurred. As I’ve posted, helping one person to speak does not infringe on other people’s speech. ---
**Author:** ![randomface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/5fc32e/32.png) [@randomface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randomface)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/90 "2011-06-30T21:38:02Z")
I could see where it could be seen as infringing. If the money a candidate raises is related to how much support they have, both in depth of support (big donations) and width of support (lots of donations), then giving more money to someone with less support would seem to be creating extra noise in the signal. This assumes that the more people that support a candidate, the more money they can raise, which is not necessarily true. Would the addition of speaker systems producing a white noise hiss in protest zones be an infringement of speech? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/91 "2011-06-30T21:39:05Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That’s only true if you accept the premise that an infringement occurred. As I’ve posted, helping one person to speak does not infringe on other people’s speech. It’s Alabama in the Deep South in 1955. The people of the state have decided that white candidates for office get $10,000 in subsidies. Black candidates get nothing. There’s been no infringement of the right of black candidates to free speech, nor any infringement of their right to campaign for public office. Right? Regards, Shodan ---
**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 30, 2011, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/92 "2011-06-30T21:42:09Z")
I think his point is that this law offers everyone the money. That notwithstanding, I’m speaking in the abstract regarding Justice Thomas, not about this specific law. ---
**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 30, 2011, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/93 "2011-06-30T22:16:51Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > It’s Alabama in the Deep South in 1955. The people of the state have decided that white candidates for office get $10,000 in subsidies. Black candidates get nothing. > > There’s been no infringement of the right of black candidates to free speech, nor any infringement of their right to campaign for public office. Right? Wrong. That’s pretty much the exact situation I described as being a clear rights violation. > [@](#): > > If the government decided it liked Jones and gave him $2,000,000 for his campaign, it would also be a violation. It would be wrong for the government to pick a candidate and give him an advantage (having $2,000,000 versus $1,000,000). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/94 "2011-06-30T23:01:15Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > It’s the fact that they ARE exceptions that proves the rule. Don’t you remember the huge fuss that was made over Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina’s losses in the last election when they were so very, very, very well funded? I’ll concede to Shodan’s cite, but not your argument. So explain it to me: in what way does the existence of an exception prove the rule? If there were no exceptions, would the rule be disproved? If there were MORE exceptions, would the proof for the rule be stronger or weaker? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/95 "2011-06-30T23:32:08Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > There’s been no infringement of the right of black candidates to free speech, nor any infringement of their right to campaign for public office. Right? Wrong. Compensating for a disadvantage is not creating an advantage. Now, can you tell us why, in the competition of ideas that is a campaign, ideas pushed by a candidate that has much more money, and hence more ability to get those ideas communicated, should have that advantage? And why, in the interests of democracy and the free market of ideas, that advantage should not be compensated for in any way? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/96 "2011-07-01T00:27:22Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Carrying placards doesn’t win elections in this day and time. Candidates need money for radio and TV ads. > > . If you’re right, then it means that the result of an election will be mostly dependant on whom can raise the most money, rather than whom well informed voters would elect. Which would be why people have a problem with _not_ leveling the playing field. ---
**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:** [July 1, 2011, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/97 "2011-07-01T03:18:50Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > If you’re right, then it means that the result of an election will be mostly dependant on whom can raise the most money, rather than whom well informed voters would elect. > > Which would be why people have a problem with _not_ leveling the playing field. I have a problem with “leveling the playing field” because I don’t see how it can be squared with the Constitution. Imagine a marginal party with no hope of electoral victory. This may even be a racist or extremist party. It would get little support in a normal electoral scheme, in a system where they were granted per voter matching funds they would get a few dollars from the state. But with this scheme the success of their opponents’ message would guarantee them a level of political funding they did not earn - paid for by people who did not support that message at all. Let’s remember that the First Amendment includes many rights - among these is a right to free association. This right cannot be guaranteed if your political activity (that is, normal donations to candidates you support) is subverted by the government based solely on that support into contributions to politicians you oppose. ---
**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:** [July 1, 2011, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/98 "2011-07-01T03:28:36Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > I have a problem with “leveling the playing field” because I don’t see how it can be squared with the Constitution. > > Imagine a marginal party with no hope of electoral victory. This may even be a racist or extremist party. It would get little support in a normal electoral scheme, in a system where they were granted per voter matching funds they would get a few dollars from the state. But with this scheme the success of their opponents’ message would guarantee them a level of political funding they did not earn - paid for by people who did not support that message at all. > > Let’s remember that the First Amendment includes many rights - among these is a right to free association. This right cannot be guaranteed if your political activity (that is, normal donations to candidates you support) is subverted by the government based solely on that support into contributions to politicians you oppose. The “government” didn’t force this idea on anyone. This law was enacted as a voter initiative. It was the people of Arizona who wanted this law. So they have no problem with their money being spend this way. ---
**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:** [July 1, 2011, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/99 "2011-07-01T09:40:21Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The “government” didn’t force this idea on anyone. This law was enacted as a voter initiative. It was the people of Arizona who wanted this law. So they have no problem with their money being spend this way. Are laws permitted to be unconstitutional if they are passed as voter initiatives? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/100 "2011-07-01T12:24:52Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Wrong. That’s pretty much the exact situation I described as being a clear rights violation. You are correct - I missed that part. Your position is consistent, although not (IMO) valid. Change the scenario - it is now Alabama in 2011. The White Separatist Party can only raise $14.82, whereas the Democrats have raised millions. Is the taxpayer now obliged to subsidize the WSP, or are we going to pick and choose which parties get the goodies and which are SOL? Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164.md?page=6)