With the pending U.S. Surpreme Court ruling in McComish v. Bennett, which could have broad implications for Fair Elections-style laws all over the country, the New York Times, Washington Post, and USA Today have editorials calling on the high court to uphold the Arizona Clean Elections law at issue in the case, arguing that the public financing law is a boon, not a hindrance for free speech.
From the New York Times editorial:
"Striking down the mechanism would reduce speech and undermine Arizona’s effort to rid itself of political corruption. It would provide new proof that the court is hostile to campaign finance laws without good reason."
From the Washington Post:
"Still, the law’s core should be upheld, in no small part because the provisions in question were enacted in pursuit of the legitimate and compelling interests of reducing the corrupting influences of big money and special interests of all sorts."
From the USA Today editorial:
"Elections provisions such as Arizona's are a vital attempt to clean up a system that is a form of legalized bribery. Too often, candidates get to office thanks to money that comes with strings attached, then spend much of their energy raising funds for re-election. Arizona citizens did something about that. It would be a shame if the Supreme Court unraveled their effort."
As the editorials argue, the "trigger funds" provision at issue in the case, if anything, increases speech in Arizona elections and should remain in place. The Roberts Court, unfortunately, has shown hostility towards these kinds of laws and today's decision is expected to follow that pattern. However they rule, systems like the one in place in Arizona will continue to adapt and endure, with the hope that our elections can truly be of, by, and for the people, not bought and paid for by special interests.
Click here for the NYT editorial.
Read the whole Washington Post editorial by clicking here.
And check out the USA Today piece here.