McComish v Bennett
McComish v Bennett is an Arizona case in which the plaintiffs sued to overturn the matching funds system on First Amendment grounds. Maine faced a similar challenge brought by the National Right to Life groups in the late 1990's. In 2000, our matching funds system was upheld by both the District Court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal.
In this case, the District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and overturned matching funds, but the state appealed the decision, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision. The First and Ninth Circuits are in agreement that these very similar matching funds programs are constitutional.
In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court then took the highly unusual step of enjoining the matching funds program on the request of the plaintiffs. Before even agreeing to hear an appeal of McComish v Bennett, the Court blocked payment of matching funds in the primary election that was then underway. Arizona's election, with many, many candidates already qualified for Clean Election funding, was thrown into a tailspin.
MCCE's Alison Smith reacts to US Supreme Court decision to block Arizona law - Listen on MPBN (6/10/2010)
Meanwhile, a similar challenge to a Clean Elections matching funds system in Connecticut ended with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturning that part of Connecticut's law. With the fight over matching funds intensifying, in February, 2011, MCCE filed an amicus brief in the Arizona case.
On March 28, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments. Read MCCE Board Member Jesse Graham's first-hand account of the oral argument before the Supreme Court
On June 27, 2011, by a vote of 5-4, the high court rejected the matching fund portion of Arizona's Clean Elections law. The
decision is disappointing, but not unexpected. The Roberts Court - the
court that brought us the infamous Citizens
United decision - is continuing its aggressive reshaping of
campaign finance laws. Read MCCE's Press Release on the decision.
This is not the end of public funding! In fact, the Court
specifically affirms the basic constitutionality of public financing of
elections. The ruling only affects the matching fund schemes that use
spending by candidates or independent expenditures to trigger additional
funding to participating candidates.
Anticipating that the Court would issue an opinion in the Arizona case in late June, the Maine Legislature passed LD 848, a resolve which provides a public process and a timeline to study the impact of the ruling and adjust our system before the 2012 elections. In August, 2011, MCCE submitted comments to the Ethics Commission on Post-McComish changes to Maine law. Today, MCCE is working with a broad group of stakeholders to recommend adjustments to the Clean Election Act that strengthen the program and are consistent with its intent before next year's elections.
CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT WHAT MCCE IS DOING TO PROTECT OUR LANDMARK LAW
BACKGROUND:
READ MORE:
Maine Voices: Clean Election law not dead yet, Alison Smith, Portland
Press Herald, 9/4/2011
Two options considered for Clean Election fixes, Portland Press Herald, 8/19/2011
Maine Ethics Commission Seeks Clean Election Law Fix, MPBN, 8/18/2011
Effort under way to fix Maine campaign funding law, Bangor Daily News, 7/21/2011
Making Political Office the Exclusive Domain of the Wealthy, Fred Markham, The Bradenton Times, 7/13/2011
3 views on future of Arizona's campaign finance system, Arizona Republic, 7/3/2011
Mainers support Clean Elections funds, fair races, Editorial, Journal Tribune, 7/2/2011
Let's do what's right for Maine, Editorial, Times Record, 6/29/2011
Clean Elections ruling will chill speech, not protect it, Greg Kesich, Portland Press Herald, 6/29/2011
Supreme Court tips scales for wealthy politicians, Editorial, Lewiston Sun Journal, 6/29/2011
Clean Elections go through the wringer, Editorial, Bangor Daily News, 6/29/2011
Is Maine's Clean Elections law in danger?, The New Maine Times, 6/29/2011
The Supreme Court's continuing defense of the powerful, E.J. Dionne, Jr., Washington Post, 6/29/2011
High court deals public campaign financing a heavy blow, Editorial, Washington Post, 6/28/2011
Where to Now on Public Financing?, Opinion, New York Times, 6/28/2011
Supreme Court ruling to affect Maine Clean Elections, Bangor Daily News, 6/28/2011
Campaign finance law fixes needed in Maine after high court ruling, Portland Press Herald, 6/28/2011
Supreme Court ruling leaves Maine elections law in doubt, Portland Daily Sun, 6/28/2011
High court decision to impact Maine clean elections law, Lewiston Sun Journal, 6/28/2011
Supreme Court Ruling Weakens Maine Clean Election Law, MPBN, 6/27/2011
Clean Election ruling, WGME, 6/27/2011
Justices Strike Down Campaign Finance Law, New York Times, 6/27/2011
Poll finds support for Arizona's Clean Elections law, azcentral.com, 4/18/2011
Demonizing political equality, Tara Malloy, The National Law Journal, 4/11/2011
Money Talks, Jeffrey Toobin, The New Yorker, 4/11/2011
McComish, the Supreme Court and the Fiesta Bowl Scandal, Doug Kendall, HuffPost, 4/4/2011
Arizona's election law is best left alone, Editorial, Los Angeles Times, 3/31/2011
Supreme Court skeptical about Arizona's campaign finance law, Washington Post, 3/29/2011
Supreme Court, Legislature set sights on Clean Elections program, Bangor Daily News, 3/29/2011
Court should uphold Arizona campaign law, Editorial, Washington Post, 3/27/2011
With Arizona case, Supreme Court takes up campaign finance issue again, Washington Post, 3/26/2011
Free Speech Worth Paying For, Charles Fried and Cliff Sloan, New York Times, 3/25/2011
Rich Candidate Expected to Win Again, Richard Hasen, Slate, 3/25/2011
The importance of campaign finance reform in one graph, Washington Post, 3/23/2011
Clean Elections doesn't deserve GOP attempts to make it illegal, Arizona Daily Sun, 3/18/2011
