Our View: Court should not limit
'Clean' candidate funds
A ruling in an Arizona case could put publicly funded candidates in Maine at risk.
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a stay on a provision of Arizona's election statutes that threatens Maine's Clean Election law. The court appears ready to make another in a line of decisions on free speech issues that could result in more speech for some and less speech for others.
This would be a setback for places like Maine that have tried to limit the impact of money on political campaigns. It would also be a step back for the nation in its attempts to make our political system less beholden to special interests.
At issue is a provision of Arizona's law that automatically gives money to a publicly financed candidate when a privately financed opponent over-spends a cap. The law, which also exists in Maine, is designed to put both candidates on an equal footing when it comes to getting their message to the public.
Two years ago the court struck down what was known as the "Millionaire's Amendment" in the McCain-Finegold campaign finance reform law, which lifted the maximum donation limits for a candidate whose opponent reached into his own pocket to spend lavishly. Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the amendment was a "drag on free speech" because it provided a disincentive for a candidate to spend his own money.
If the court were to apply the same reasoning in the Arizona case, that could threaten a key protection that keeps publicly financed candidates from being drowned out by rich opponents. This creates an unfair advantage for wealthy candidates who can spend their own money.
That would be a mistake. Maine people created the Clean Elections fund and support it through voluntary contributions on their tax returns.
The money is used to keep candidates where they should be -- talking to voters -- and not stuck in a dark room talking to donors, who may not even be residents of the state.
The automatic payments do not stifle a self-financed candidate's speech; they facilitate more speech, which is healthy for the process. Giving one candidate the ability to get his message out while his opponent is forced to be silent would not favor a free exchange of ideas.
The court should stay out of Clean Election systems like Maine's if it wants to promote free speech.
Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form
Most...
Copyright ©2010 MaineToday Media, Inc.
8 COMMENTS
louisH2Ovill said...
Once again the right-wing judicial radicals dominating the Roberts Court show that their agenda to legislate from the bench will out-weigh their allegiance to the Constitution. These judicial activists continue to ignore legislative prerogatives in implementing their wish-list!
June 11, 2010 at 4:14 AM Report abuse
Jim said...
Les Otten spends over two million on his campaign so Peter Mills (clean Election) is given a windfall of over two million of our hard earned tax dollars. Privately financed Paul LePage wins the nomination in a landslide after spending only two hundred thousand; that is 10 percent of what we the people spent on a failed campaign. Let’s stop this experiment in electoral welfare; the so called “clean elections” is an oxymoron if ever there was one.
June 11, 2010 at 6:59 AM Report abuse
AXeL said...
It is not true that spending vast amounts of money BUYS an election. The political landscape is littered with the carapaces of men who spent MILLIONS of their own money and were defeated by "lesser" men. Case in Point: Maine's own Paul LePage was discounted from the get-go because of his lack of money and not from his lack of appeal and message. Nationwide it is the same as under-funded Tea Party supported candidates beat out the moneyed Democrats who outspent them 10-1. Clearly, Democrats have more work to do if they intend to win elections. I suggest they listen to their constituents, but NAAAAA!
June 11, 2010 at 8:30 AM Report abuse
Chew said...
Spending taxpayer dollars to finance campaigns is just plain wrong. This has nothing to do with "free speach" and everything to do with "paid speach"... Everyone has a right to free speech. Everyone also has a right to finance their own message. Why should taxpayers bear the burden, voluntary or not, of financing campaigns when part of the "job" these people are running for is to manage taxpayer money? If a candidate is not capable of securing the respources necessary to run for office, by definition they are not qualified to be elected for such a position.
June 11, 2010 at 9:08 AM Report abuse
louisH2Ovill said...
Wrong, Jim--he didn't get ANY additional funding. He would have had to win the primary for that! And if he had won the primary, he would not have needed any additional funding except if Eliot Cutler broke all records in Maine in spending for his campaign. You talk a bad line, Jim, and of course know nothing about what you are saying!
June 11, 2010 at 9:37 AM Report abuse
alamo said...
Spending taxpayer dollars to finance campaigns is just plain wrong. This has nothing to do with "free speach" and everything to do with "paid speach"... Everyone has a right to free speech. Everyone also has a right to finance their own message. Why should taxpayers bear the burden, voluntary or not, of financing campaigns when part of the "job" these people are running for is to manage taxpayer money? If a candidate is not capable of securing the respources necessary to run for office, by definition they are not qualified to be elected for such a position.
June 11, 2010 at 3:55 PM Report abuse
Jim said...
louisH2Ovill as of the March 26 filing Peter Mills had received $599,975.43 in Maine Clean Election Act Payments & Authorizations. Let’s see what amount is after the final primary filing is in. BTW I like Peter, just do not like the so called “Clean Elections”.
June 11, 2010 at 10:48 PM Report abuse
louisH2Ovill said...
Exactly, Jim! You prove you are totally wrong. $600,00 is the initial Clean Elections payment. He did NOT get any additional windfall because of the spending by his opponent. He would have received a normal $600,000 additional payment if he had won. Your two million windfall nonsense is just far-fetched. Just because you don't like Clean Elections does not give you the right to make up lies about it!
June 12, 2010 at 3:33 AM Report abuse