Opinion No. (2011)

Requested opinion re Nebraska Campaign Finance Limitation Act (CFLA) and Bennett v. Bennett analysis; focus on distribution of public funds and aggregate contribution limits.
Bennett held matching funds burdened political speech and failed strict scrutiny; rejected leveling/electoral equalization/anticorruption justifications.
Nebraska CFLA distributes public funds via spending-limit triggers tied to opponents' expenditures and non-abiding candidates; Nebraska differs from Arizona (no initial public funds, no IE-triggered funding).
Court notes public financing per se is permissible; Bennett’s framework would likely find Nebraska public financing provisions unconstitutional if treated like Arizona’s matches.
Severability analysis: §32-1608 (aggregate limits) heavily tied to public-financing provisions; severability likely doubtful; could render §32-1608 unenforceable if funding provisions invalid.
Legislative history suggests §32-1608 was once removed then restored, but severability depends on whether the funding provisions are indispensable to the overall scheme.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are CFLA public-funding provisions constitutional under Bennett?	Nebraska's public funding burdens privately financed speech.	Nebraska scheme differs from Arizona and can be distinguished.	Likely unconstitutional.
Are CFLA aggregate contribution limits constitutional under Bennett?	Interwoven with public financing; severability uncertain.	May be severable if independent of funding provisions.	Likely not severable; potentially unconstitutional if funding invalid.

Arizona Free Ent. Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 131 S. Ct. 2806 (2011) (matching funds burden unconstitutional under strict scrutiny)
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (speech burdens subject to strict scrutiny; limits gov't interest in preventing corruption)
Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010) (speech protections; spending limits and linkage to public funding)