Federal judge dismisses free speech challenges to campaign funding: (WI)

[iwishiwas]

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/04/9944/live-reporting-wisconsin-protests


Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Federal judge dismisses free speech challenges to campaign funding:

Groups argued against provision that gives candidates extra money if outside spending reaches threshold


Wisconsin Right to Life, joined by the Wisconsin Center for Economic Prosperity and school choice advocate George Mitchell, had sought an injunction to halt the public financing process for the election. They contend the law violates their free speech rights under the First Amendment. In a 39-page opinion and order, U.S. District Judge William M. Conley denied the plaintiffs' motions and granted judgment to the defendants, which include the Government Accountability Board, the secretary of state and the district attorneys of Milwaukee and Waukesha counties. Conley wrote that in light of the state's undeniably compelling interest in avoiding the perception that Supreme Court elections are tainted with an appearance of bias, he was upholding the law. Wisconsin Right to Life said it intends to appeal immediately for emergency relief in advance of Tuesday's election pitting incumbent Justice David Prosser against Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg. In a separate order, Conley also dismissed a similar challenge by former Supreme Court candidate Randy Koschnick, who ran unsuccessfully in 2009 with private funding and said he expected to run again.

READ MORE HERE.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/119015369.html

[Old and In the Way]

1. How is their 'free speech' being impacted by this law?

They can raise all of the money they want from corporations wanting to promote an anti-democratic agenda.

They ought to ban all private funding and just use public funding of elections. In Maine, those that sign up for public campaign funding are very tightly regulated...but there's a good chance that your vote won't be influenced by the money a special interest contributes to your campaign. If the private funded candidate reports contributions over a set amount, the publicly funded candidate gets a dollar for dollar match. Takes the economic incentive out of buying legislative votes. That's the only way democracy is going to survive.

[starroute]

2. Isn't there a case just like this before the US Supreme Court?

I think Rachel Maddow was talking about it the other day. She basically described it as Citizens United: The Sequel. Ah, yes -- here it is:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0328/Why-sharply-divided-Supreme-Court-may-strike-down-Arizona-campaign-finance-law

March 28, 2011

A sharply divided US Supreme Court on Monday appeared prepared to strike down a key portion of Arizona’s system of public financing for elections – potentially dealing another major blow to campaign finance reform advocates.

The case, Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett, examines an Arizona law that provides public funding for political candidates. At issue is the provision providing matching funds to publicly-funded candidates. These candidates get dollar-for-dollar taxpayer funding equal to the campaign spending of any political opponents who choose to rely on private campaign donations.

The Arizona system is designed to encourage candidates for statewide office to reject traditional, private fund-raising efforts, in favor of a government-funded option. Under the public option, candidates who obtain a certain number of $5 donations are deemed qualified for an "initial grant" of campaign funds. No one is challenging the constitutionality of that portion of the state law.

The controversial part of the law involves the allocation of matching funds. Under the law, whenever a candidate who rejected the government-funded option spends more than that initial grant, all government-funded candidates are eligible to receive a dollar-for-dollar match, to ensure the political campaign remains competitive.