Read more >> Download Amicus Brief
The case was brought by several Arizona officeholders, candidates and political action committees against Arizona’s Secretary of State and the Clean Elections Commission, challenging provisions of Arizona’s “clean elections” program that provide dollar-for-dollar additional public funding to candidates who accept taxpayer money to run their campaigns when their opponents or outside groups outraise and outspend them.
The Court has previously ruled that, under the rationale of the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Davis v. Federal Election Commission, Arizona’s “matching funds” provisions impose an unconstitutional penalty on “traditional candidates” for exercising their First Amendment rights to make unlimited, lawful and constitutionally-protected campaign expenditures. However, Judge Roslyn Silver did not strike down the “matching funds” provisions last fall because of a reluctance to intervene in ongoing campaigns. Instead, she ruled that the individuals and groups challenging Arizona’s Clean Elections Act “have shown a high likelihood of success on the merits.”