# 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:** 17\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/101 "2011-07-01T13:21:09Z")
We can, and do, pick which parties are serious and which are frivolous. At state level anyway, a party typically has to get a certain percentage of the vote to be eligible for official recognition, including getting its candidates on the ballot and, where applicable, public funding for campaigns. The presumption, with which you may disagree, is that a serious position, and party, will be able to gain a respectable level of support even without Big Money behind it. Interesting cite from the Freakonomics books, btw. While certainly nonrigorous, they are very entertaining and even thought-provoking. But the notion that 1 percent of the vote either way is insignificant is way off, in a country where a 55-45 result is labeled a “landslide”. Margins of less than 1 percent are pretty damn common, and especially in the aggregate make a huge difference in resulting policies and actions. Money isn’t ultimately definitive, no, but it does matter, and quite a lot. ---
**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:** [July 1, 2011, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/102 "2011-07-01T13:42:59Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > 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? We do what we do with federal matching funds, which have been around for decades in Presidential office: only give them to candidates or parties which demonstrate a reasonable base of support by past electoral performance. If the WSP picks up 5% of the vote in 2012, there’s no reason they shouldn’t receive public funding in 2014. Considering that Ralph Nader never managed to qualify for matching funds despite garnering enough votes to swing the 2000 election, it’s clearly not a low bar to meet. ---
**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:** [July 1, 2011, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/103 "2011-07-01T13:43:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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? Well, Bricker, let me introduce you to the concept of “man bites dog” as it applies to journalism. The idea of course, is that “dog bites man” is not a story because it happens all the time, in the normal course of events. “Man Bites Dog” IS a story, because it rarely happens. So when we see extensive coverage of Meg Whitman and Carly Fiarucci’s campaign and how amazing it was that they lost considering what an economic advantage they had over their Democratic opponents, you have to figure that the norm for political campaigning is that the candidate with a significant edge in terms of campaign money is very likely to win … otherwise, candidates who DIDN’T win would not be a story. It seems to me that it would be a simple thing to compare wins vs. losses in the post-publicly financed campaign era, as I believe that campaign disclosure laws are still in effect. That might settle things. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/104 "2011-07-01T14:19:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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? > [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Well, Bricker, let me introduce you to the concept of “man bites dog” as it applies to journalism. The idea of course, is that “dog bites man” is not a story because it happens all the time, in the normal course of events. “Man Bites Dog” IS a story, because it rarely happens. > > So when we see extensive coverage of Meg Whitman and Carly Fiarucci’s campaign and how amazing it was that they lost considering what an economic advantage they had over their Democratic opponents, you have to figure that the norm for political campaigning is that the candidate with a significant edge in terms of campaign money is very likely to win … otherwise, candidates who DIDN’T win would not be a story. > > It seems to me that it would be a simple thing to compare wins vs. losses in the post-publicly financed campaign era, as I believe that campaign disclosure laws are still in effect. That might settle things. By “explain it to me,” you clearly didn’t mean “answer the questions asked,” since you quoted my three questions and then didn’t answer any of them. Again: 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:** ![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, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/105 "2011-07-01T14:33:48Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > We can, and do, pick which parties are serious and which are frivolous. At state level anyway, a party typically has to get a certain percentage of the vote to be eligible for official recognition, including getting its candidates on the ballot and, where applicable, public funding for campaigns. The presumption, with which you may disagree, is that a serious position, and party, will be able to gain a respectable level of support even without Big Money behind it. Okay. Under the law in question, before the Supreme Court overturned the provisions it did, what did a candidate have to do to qualify for matching funds in Arizona? (Here’s a hint - the bar was set pretty low.) I am not a fan of other matching funds schemes - but they don’t tip into problems wrt the First Amendment IMO because they are pinned to the party’s support in the last election, as you note - not to the success of the fundraising of your political opponents. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/106 "2011-07-01T14:35:39Z")
Still think **Miller’s** Post #34 hits the nail on the head here, and I wish posters arguing in favor of this decision could address it substantively. ---
**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, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/107 "2011-07-01T14:44:30Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > Still think **Miller’s** Post #34 hits the nail on the head here, and I wish posters arguing in favor of this decision could address it substantively. [This comes plenty close:](http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/09/meg-whitman-blows-away-self-funded.html) > [@](#): > > Money-in-politics news of the day: Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, former eBay chief executive and the Great Right Hope of California Republicans, has spent more of her own money on a political race than anyone in U.S. history, including billionaire New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who spent $108 million on his reelection efforts last year. > > What you probably don’t know: Whitman’s self-financed spending total – $119 million and counting – utterly dwarfs that of any self-funded candidate who’s competed at the federal level, running either for a congressional seat or the presidency, a Center for Responsive Politics study indicates. > > At the federal level, presidential candidate Ross Perot, pictured, remains the self-financing record holder, having poured more than $63.5 million of his own cash into a bid that earned him about 20 percent of the national popular vote, zero electoral votes and a third-place finish behind Democrat Bill Clinton and incumbent Republican President George H.W. Bush. > > In 2000, John Corzine spent more than $60 million to win a U.S. Senate seat in New Jersey. But in 2008, cash couldn’t help him, either, when he failed to win re-election, this time as New Jersey’s governor, an office he initially won in 2006. > > See a pattern? Indeed, self-financed federal-level candidates generally fare poorly. The attached table shows a lengthy list of losers - even the people who won their offices pretty much stalled once they got them. Money can have a huge advantage in a election, but it is the more prosaic kind of money that generally does this, like floods of small donations to the Obama 2008 website. I didn’t see many complaints on this board when that was going down. Nor should I have. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/108 "2011-07-01T14:45:14Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Here’s a hint - the bar was set pretty low. Then _you_ tell _us_, if you think it advances the discussion. I’m no more interested in playing \*your \*games than, oh, let’s just say “anyone else’s” games. > [@](#): > > I am not a fan of other matching funds schemes - but they don’t tip into problems wrt the First Amendment IMO because they are pinned to the party’s support in the last election, as you note - not to the success of the fundraising of your political opponents. This is one of many instances where Constitutional rights and principles come into conflict with each other, isn’t it? They’re far more common than the cut and dried kind, at least IMHO. Here, the conflict is between the First Amendment (or at least one way of interpreting it), and the underlying principles of democracy itself. To declare it to be all about that particular interpretation of the First, and nothing else, is to declare victory even before the war - and to get the other guys to say it too is to achieve that victory. But it isn’t really all about free speech, is it? The purpose of any political speech in a campaign is ultimately to win the election. That’s what this is all about, not protecting the First - which, as you know, has other hard exceptions to it based on other public needs. No, it’s fundamentally about creating and institutionalizing an advantage in achieving the goal of winning elections, isn’t it? And aren’t there public needs involved with that issue that come into conflict with 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:** [July 1, 2011, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/109 "2011-07-01T15:01:40Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Then _you_ tell _us_, if you think it advances the discussion. I’m no more interested in playing \*your \*games than, oh, let’s just say “anyone else’s” games. You claimed that the state “typically” set requirements on who would get the public funds. Basically I’m asking you for a cite on what those requirements are. ---
**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, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/110 "2011-07-01T15:05:10Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > This is one of many instances where Constitutional rights and principles come into conflict with each other, isn’t it? They’re far more common than the cut and dried kind, at least IMHO. Here, the conflict is between the First Amendment (or at least one way of interpreting it), and the underlying principles of democracy itself. To declare it to be all about that particular interpretation of the First, and nothing else, is to declare victory even before the war - and to get the other guys to say it too is to achieve that victory. Well, I agree with that, actually. And that’s why I have said other funding schemes are permissible, and restrictions that are based on ensuring transparency and combating corruptions are permissible. The only thing struck down here is a scheme that bases matching funds on the actions of another party - this isn’t a dealbreaker for democracy. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/111 "2011-07-01T15:34:20Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > You claimed that the state “typically” set requirements on who would get the public funds. Basically I’m asking you for a cite on what those requirements are. You’ve already done it for Arizona, obviously, since you made that particular challenge, so let’s see it. :dubious: Here’s a reply that is still on a higher level than your request: > **[Campaign finance in the United States | Public financing of campaigns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States#Public_financing_of_campaigns)** > > After Citizens United v. FEC and other court rulings ended limits on some campaign spending, reformers concerned about the > political deck being unfairly stacked "in favor of the few donors able to give large contributions" concentrated on public finance of political campaigns. The Brennan Center for Justice, for example, promotes "small donor public financing", i.e. a system where "public funds match and multiply small donations", the idea being candidates would be incentivized "to seek out... ---
**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, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/112 "2011-07-01T15:59:03Z")
> [@](#): > > D. To qualify for clean campaign funding, a candidate must have been approved as a > participating candidate pursuant to section 16-947 and have obtained the following > number1 of qualifying contributions: > > 1. For a candidate for legislature, two hundred. > 2. For candidate for mine inspector, five hundred. > 3. For a candidate for treasurer, superintendent of public instruction, or > corporation commission, one thousand five hundred. > 4. For a candidate for Secretary of State or attorney general, two thousand five > hundred. > 5. For a candidate for governor, four thousand. > E. To qualify for clean campaign funding, a candidate must have met the requirements of > this section and either be an independent candidate or meet the following standards: > 6. To qualify for funding for a party primary election, a candidate must have properly > filed nominating papers and nominating petitions with signatures pursuant to > chapter 3, articles 2 and 3 of this title in the primary of a political organization > entitled to continued representation on the official ballot in accordance with section > 16-804. > 7. To qualify for clean campaign funding for a general election, a candidate must be a > party nominee of such a political organization. [From here (warning: PDF)](http://azcleanelections.gov/2011-2012_docs/2011ACTRules2-17-11.sflb.ashx) A qualifying contribution is five dollars. So again, the bar is set very low. ---
**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, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/113 "2011-07-01T16:13:59Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > I am not a fan of other matching funds schemes - but they don’t tip into problems wrt the First Amendment IMO because they are pinned to the party’s support in the last election, as you note - not to the success of the fundraising of your political opponents. What problem with the First Amendment? There’s nothing in the First Amendment that says you can have too much free speech. ---
**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, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/114 "2011-07-01T16:26:48Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > What problem with the First Amendment? There’s nothing in the First Amendment that says you can have too much free speech. Is the right to free speech the only part of the First Amendment? That would be news to me. Check out that part about the right of the people to freely assemble, and get back to me. Implicit in the right to assemble is the right to form associations and even parties. Part of that right is the right to support those organizations using your own funds - and one would suppose that one cannot be forced to directly support an organization that one opposes with his own funds. The federal presidential matching funds that come from tax funds have to be voluntarily checked off on individual returns to avoid this constitutional problem. ---
**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, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/115 "2011-07-01T18:30:31Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Is the right to free speech the only part of the First Amendment? That would be news to me. > > Check out that part about the right of the people to freely assemble, and get back to me. > > Implicit in the right to assemble is the right to form associations and even parties. Part of that right is the right to support those organizations using your own funds - and one would suppose that one cannot be forced to directly support an organization that one opposes with his own funds. > > The federal presidential matching funds that come from tax funds have to be voluntarily checked off on individual returns to avoid this constitutional problem. So you’re going off on a complete tangent that has nothing to do with anything that we’ve been discussing here? Well then, using your logic, I guess the Supreme Court’s actions were wrong. The people of Arizona wanted to exercise their right to assembly by contributing money in the way you described. And the Supreme Court denied them that right. ---
**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, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/116 "2011-07-01T20:08:33Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > So you’re going off on a complete tangent that has nothing to do with anything that we’ve been discussing here? > > Well then, using your logic, I guess the Supreme Court’s actions were wrong. The people of Arizona wanted to exercise their right to assembly by contributing money in the way you described. And the Supreme Court denied them that right. The people as a whole may not deprive an individual of his rights without due process. How is due process served when money is simply handed out - is there any way to challenge that? I realize the Court didn’t cite a violation of the right of assembly. I see one, though, plain as day, and it is a pretty plain First Amendment violation on its own. What they cited was the chilling effect - how people might refrain from certain campaign activities since they do not want their opponents to get matching funds. For people in this thread who are advocating for a more expansive debate, this should be the opposite effect than the one they want - unless that was a stalking horse for leveling the playing field. Indeed, oral arguments in this case noted that the commission that administered this law listed a level playing field as an important part of its function. Never mind that using the law in this way is unconstitutional. This could have been simple - just give candidates money according to some formula or as decided by some commission and there is no constitutional issue. Making some of the funds conditional on the free speech actions of others is a constitutional problem. Better to get rid of that aspect of the law. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164/117 "2011-07-01T20:36:50Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Indeed, oral arguments in this case noted that the commission that administered this law listed a level playing field as an important part of its function. > > Never mind that using the law in this way is unconstitutional. Under what theory? :dubious: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-against-arizona-campaign-finance-law/587164.md?page=5)