Shut Down: Arizona's Idea to Restrict Political Speech

Thursday, 30 Jun 2011 09:13 AM

By George Will

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
  Copy Shortlink
The fate of Arizona's Clean Elections Act, which the Supreme Court on Monday declared unconstitutional, was foreshadowed March 28, during oral arguments. Lawyers defending the law insisted its purpose was to combat corruption or the appearance thereof. The court has repeatedly said this is the only constitutionally permissible reason for restricting the quantity of political speech.

The law's defenders insisted its purpose was not to "level the playing field" by equalizing candidates' resources, which the court has declared an unconstitutional reason for regulating speech. But Chief Justice John Roberts replied: "Well, I checked the Citizens Clean Elections Commission website this morning, and it says that this act was passed to 'level the playing field' when it comes to running for office." Game over.

Given the clarity and frequency with which the court has stressed the unconstitutionality of laws empowering government to equalize candidates' speech by equalizing their resources, Monday's ruling was predictable, but gratifying. Also predictable, but depressing, were four justices (Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor) finding no constitutional flaw in a law that did this:

It made public funding available for all campaigns for state offices — but did so in a way flagrantly punitive to persons relying on voluntary private contributions. Recipients of tax dollars were limited to spending such dollars — but they got extra infusions of them to match spending by candidates relying on private contributions, if such spending exceeded the amount Arizona's government deemed proper.

So, these matching funds were a powerful incentive for privately funded candidates not to speak — not to solicit funds to disseminate their advocacy. Even spending by independent groups supporting a privately financed candidate trigger such infusions to opponents. This, even though the court has said that independent expenditures are core political speech and "do not give rise to corruption."

There is evidence supporting what is intuitively obvious — that the matching funds provision was intended to suppress speech by candidates relying on voluntary contributions, candidates who knew their speaking would trigger tax dollars for their subsidized opponents.

An internal memo for the Clean Elections Institute, which defends the law, contentedly noted that a privately funded candidate "may think twice about raising additional funds in a race against a Clean Elections candidate," so "it can be argued that millions of dollars in spending never takes place." Hence the law's purpose is to curtail political speech.

When Arizona Democrat Janet Napolitano, now secretary of homeland security, was running for governor, she joked that President George W. Bush, in effect, held a fundraiser for her. When he spoke at a fundraiser for her privately funded opponent, she received $750,000 in matching tax dollars.

Roberts, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, noted that the "professed" purpose of Arizona's law is to encourage candidates to accept taxpayer funding. However, "how the state chooses to encourage participation in its public funding system matters, and we have never held that a state may burden political speech — to the extent the matching funds provision does — to ensure adequate participation in a public funding system."

The Arizona law's fate was also foreshadowed in 2008, when the court held unconstitutional the "Millionaires' Amendment" in the McCain-Feingold law regulating the quantity, content and timing of political speech. The amendment, written by incumbents to protect incumbents by punishing challengers wealthy enough to fund their own campaigns, said: When a wealthy candidate exceeds a particular spending threshold (the government's opinion of the proper amount of political speech), the candidate's opponent can receive contributions triple the size of contributions otherwise legal.

Because wealthy candidates cannot be corrupted by their own money, the Millionaires' Amendment mocked McCain-Feingold's pretense of disinterested concern with corruption, and it illuminated the element of incumbent protection in most campaign regulations.

The Arizona law's fate actually was sealed in 1791, when the First Amendment was ratified; 220 years later, one wonders: When will people eager to empower government to regulate speech about itself abandon the fiction that political money can be regulated without regulating political speech? Will their long losing streak in the Supreme Court ever convince them that the First Amendment requires debate about government without government's regulatory intervention?

During oral arguments last March, a frustrated Breyer, who is permissive regarding regulations restricting political speech, said: "It is better to say it's all illegal than to subject these things to death by a thousand cuts." Yes. Because it all is illegal as long as the First Amendment exists.

George Will's email address is georgewill@washpost.com.

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
  Copy Shortlink
Around the Web
Join the Newsmax Community
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
>> Register to share your comments with the community.
>> Login if you are already a member.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
Email:
Country
Zip Code:
Privacy: We never share your email.
 
Hot Topics
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
Around the Web
Top Stories
You May Also Like

Colo. Senate Race's 'War on Women' Falls Flat

Sunday, 19 Oct 2014 08:34 AM

The "war on women" incantation is mindless , a substitute for thought. . . .

Redskins Petition May Backfire on FCC

Thursday, 16 Oct 2014 10:13 AM

Is the FCC empowered to protect an entitlement to a life without annoyances? What if the FCC is annoying? . . .

Dental Regulators Seek to Quash 14th Amendment

Sunday, 12 Oct 2014 16:54 PM

Responding to complaints from licensed dentists seeking to monopolize teeth whitening, the board has issued at least 47  . . .

Most Commented

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

 
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved