More on McComish v. Bennett Oral Argument
LA Times:
Critics say the system burdens those who opt for private financing. The free speech of privately financed candidates is "chilled," they argue, because they refrain from spending as much as they might like in order not to trigger the flow of public funds to an opposing, publicly financed candidate.
But is that kind of chilling effect real? Do candidates really spend less in order not to trigger the flow of public funds? The petitioners' claim in the case is backed primarily by anecdotal evidence from candidates and independent groups.
"The case could have a broad impact on federal and state efforts to create alternative methods for funding election campaigns," wrote the Campaign Legal Center's Gerry Hebert and Tara Malloy. "Depending on its scope, an adverse ruling from the high court could undermine public financing systems across the country and increase still further the grossly disproportionate voice given to corporations and unions in our elections."
During oral arguments, Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested he believed the law deterred the free political speech of privately financed candidates and their supporters. When a lawyer representing Arizona insisted it did not deter independent spending for privately financed candidates, Kennedy said, "I frankly am tempted to believe the opposite view."
Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, also expressed reservations about the 1998 law that state officials say was passed to counter the negative effect of private big-money interests in elections. Justice Clarence Thomas, the fifth member of the conservative wing and a strong opponent of campaign restrictions, said nothing, as is his practice.
