Two weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in McComish v. Bennett, a challenge to the “triggered matching funds provisions” of Arizona’s successful public-financing program. Many have speculated as to the potential impact of the case: Would an adverse ruling invalidate only the “triggers” of Arizona’s program or also imperil public financing more broadly?
Unfortunately, the impact of McComish could extend even beyond the sphere of public financing. A troubling and little-noticed aspect of the petitioners’ case is their attempt to absolutely discredit the so-called “equalizing rationale” for campaign-finance regulation. The equalizing rationale — which encompasses an interest in ensuring that wealth is not a prerequisite for running for public office and in enabling citizens of all economic brackets to meaningfully influence elections — has long played a part in the public thinking on campaign-finance reform.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
