Capitol Voice

Arizona's public financing of state elections case will be the first time the Supreme Court has reviewed public financing in 35 years.The case which is currently being examined now as the starting point for judicial analysis of the constitutionality of campaign finance restrictions is the Buckley vs. Valeo case in 1975. This supreme court case resulted in the decision that limitations on campaign expenditures by individuals,groups and the candidate placed restrictions on protected expression, first amendment rights.The Brennan Center representing the state of Arizona states that the Mc Comish vs. Bennett decision "will have no bearing on the constitutionality of the Fair Elections Now Act or other voluntary public financing systems such as the presidential public finiancing system that lacks the "triggerfunds". These are special funds administered within the Arizona law specifically to match the growing campaign budget of the opponent.The Fair Elections Now Act does not contain the same 'trigger' funds as the Arizona campaign reform law.The Brennan Center's analysis of the McComish vs. Bennett Case is a reassurance to campaign reform advocates that the supreme court ruling in March will not have as strong a bearing on future campaign reform measures as might be widely circulated.  For more info contact This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it