Case: Arizona Free Enterprise PAC v. Bennett
Facts: In 1998 Arizona voters approved a bill known as the Clean Elections Act, which made is so there was public financing for elections within the state, thus creating a “clean election”. The details of the bill included the participants of the campaign would have to round up a specific amount of $5 donations, which in turn would make that candidates able to receive public funds. One note about the bill is that if a candidate under the public funding was outspent by a participant that was not using public funds, that participating candidate would receiver matching funds to make sure that the election was still competitive and both had equal opportunity. On June 8, 2010 the SCOTUS granted the plaintiffs' petition pending the Court's certiorari decision.
Issue: Can the government use taxpayer funds to subsidize political campaigns? Does that hinder the first amendment rights of people by suppressing everyday person’s speech?
Holding: Arizona's matching funds scheme, which provides additional funds to a publicly funded candidate when …show more content…
Roberts also added that publically financing is a way that the government can prevent corruption, but if it passes the line of the First Amendment, in which he agreed that Arizona’s provisions did, that it is just too much and not appropriate. Roberts wrote that the main idea was to create an even ground for political speech. Roberts even somewhat joked and said that “leveling the playing field” but that it is not a game in a democracy, and that campaigning for office is not a game at
Facts: In 1998 Arizona voters approved a bill known as the Clean Elections Act, which made is so there was public financing for elections within the state, thus creating a “clean election”. The details of the bill included the participants of the campaign would have to round up a specific amount of $5 donations, which in turn would make that candidates able to receive public funds. One note about the bill is that if a candidate under the public funding was outspent by a participant that was not using public funds, that participating candidate would receiver matching funds to make sure that the election was still competitive and both had equal opportunity. On June 8, 2010 the SCOTUS granted the plaintiffs' petition pending the Court's certiorari decision.
Issue: Can the government use taxpayer funds to subsidize political campaigns? Does that hinder the first amendment rights of people by suppressing everyday person’s speech?
Holding: Arizona's matching funds scheme, which provides additional funds to a publicly funded candidate when …show more content…
Roberts also added that publically financing is a way that the government can prevent corruption, but if it passes the line of the First Amendment, in which he agreed that Arizona’s provisions did, that it is just too much and not appropriate. Roberts wrote that the main idea was to create an even ground for political speech. Roberts even somewhat joked and said that “leveling the playing field” but that it is not a game in a democracy, and that campaigning for office is not a game at