Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett
131 S. Ct. 2806
| SCOTUS | 2011Background
- Arizona voters enacted the Citizens Clean Elections Act creating a voluntary public financing program for state offices.
- Public funding includes an initial lump sum and, under certain conditions, matching funds to publicly funded opponents when privately funded spending exceeds limits.
- Matching funds are triggered by privately financed candidate expenditures and independent expenditures in support of the privately funded candidate or against the publicly funded candidate.
- Privately funded candidates can raise and spend unlimited funds; publicly funded candidates must adhere to spending caps and other campaign restrictions.
- Plaintiffs—five candidates and two independent groups—challenge the matching funds as a First Amendment burden on speech; the Ninth Circuit upheld it as burdensome but minimal, while the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Arizona's matching funds scheme burden political speech? | Privately financed speech is burdened as funds flow to opponents. | Public funding with matching funds is a permissible subsidy and may be justified to combat corruption. | Yes, substantial burden on speech. |
| Is there a compelling state interest to justify the burden? | State interest is leveling the playing field and is not sufficient to justify the burden. | Anticorruption interests in reducing corruption and appearance of corruption justify the mechanism. | Yes, compelling interest shown (anticorruption). |
| Does the interest in preventing corruption justify a scheme that equalizes speech by subsidizing opponents? | Equalizing funding cannot justify burden on protected speech and is not a compelling interest. | Equal funding and induced participation in public financing help combat corruption. | No, equalizing interest cannot justify the burden; but the Court held the burden justified by compelling interest. |
| Is the matching funds mechanism consistent with First Amendment subsidies doctrine? | Subsidies in response to others' speech distort the marketplace of ideas and burden speech. | Subsidies are viewpoint-neutral and promote more speech without restricting speech. | The Court treated the subsidy as consistent with First Amendment speech facilitation. |
| Is the data on deterrence of speech necessary to uphold the law? | Empirical proof of deterrence is not required to invalidate a burdensome law. | Evidence of deterrence supports the law's effectiveness and legitimacy. | Empirical proof not required; the law is nonetheless found to burden speech to a substantial degree. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (public financing can enlarge public discussion; distinguishes subsidies from restrictions)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (U.S. 2010) (disclosures and independent expenditures; subsidies as speech-facilitating)
- Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724 (U.S. 2008) (Millionaire’s Amendment; discriminatory limits struck as unconstitutional)
- McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (U.S. 2003) (upholding some campaign-related restrictions as narrowly tailored)
- Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, 551 U.S. 449 (U.S. 2007) (independent expenditures; disclosure-related considerations)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (robust First Amendment protection for discussion of public issues)