For those who have been caught up in the internal cross-fire, the upcoming Supreme Court case, McComish v. Bennett, is a really big deal. There is good reason to believe the Supreme Court will strike down the most important aspect of Arizona's public financing system, which is among the most progressive in the country. The current Supreme Court is not only opposed to campaign finance reform, but it's willingness to dive into the fray suggests that progressives may have to simply abandon this issue as a lost cause and figure out more creative ways to combat the corporate influx of money into elections.
Arizona passed comprehensive campaign finance reform in 1998 following a major set of scandals. Candidates who accept public financing are given initial funds by the state. If their opponents spend more than a certain amount, that triggers the state to match those funds. That is the main issue in the lawsuit.
The New York Times sums up the main reason the Supreme Court's ruling against Arizona is a foregone conclusion.
There is reason to think the Supreme Court will find that second part of the law problematic. In June, the court issued an order barring its enforcement while appeals were prepared.
And recent decisions from the court, including Citizens United in January and one striking down a federal measure known as the "millionaire’s amendment" in 2008, suggest that a majority of the justices are skeptical of government efforts to level the playing field in the area of political speech.
The 2008 decision the NY Times refers to is Davis v. FEC, which was challenged by self-funding Dem, Jack Davis of New York.
For those who are argue that the Supreme Court will uphold public financing, but strike down the additional funding mechanisms, that's the whole ballgame!
As election lawyer Rick Hasen writes,
"The whole point of the extra matching funds in the Arizona plan is to give candidates assurance they won't be vastly outspent in their election."
Witness New York City, where mayoral candidate Bill Thompson (D) opted into the public financing system and was outspent 10-1 by Mayor Bloomberg. Public financing is useless unless all candidates have incentives to participate in it.
Once the Arizona law is struck down, other states like Maine are soon to follow, and even aspects of New York City's well regarded campaign finance laws will be vulnerable.
I am concerned that Adam B's front-page post, which was as thorough as usual, few comments, and little substantive discussion.
Yes, it's true that campaign finance reform is not sexy, but don't we all agree on the corrosive influence of lobbyists and corporations? Without campaign finance reform, there is no reason politicians should heed our voice more than theirs.
I am not interested in venting about how John Roberts and his crew are bought and paid for, or how they should be impeached, or wishing ill on them personally. Let's be mature, let's be constructive.
Unfortunately, the five conservatives will likely survive even an Obama second term. In the last Congressional session, even a HIGHLY watered down DISCLOSE Act couldn't pass, and that's when we had 59 Senators. So no judicial or legislative solutions are on the horizon.
The main solution the Democratic establishment has come up with is to hit up high rolling supporters to create an expensive operation that will match the Republicans 2012 GOTV effort. That's fine...but relying on big money donors comes at a tremendous ideological cost, as we've seen since the Clinton years.
Are there more creative ways to reduce the impact of money in politics? If I had a silver bullet, I would have led the diary with it. The best thing I can think of is asking progressives in the grassroots to make steady, if modest, donations to institutions like ActBlue, or a similar funding base.
Hopefully some of you out there have better ideas for how to respond to what may be the death of campaign finance reform.