Nebraska Done with Matching Funds

August 10, 2012   •  By Sarah Lee   •  
Default Article

It nearly went unnoticed but a court in Nebraska has decided to follow the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett, a decision that was greeted with horror by reformers in 2011 because it declared “the use of ‘matching funds,’ whereby a privately-financed candidate for political office would be forced to trigger state-granted matching funds for any publicly-funded opponent if he or she spent above a certain threshold, [to be] an unconstitutional demand on a candidate whose speech would be chilled by the mandate.”

In the Nebraska case, the state’s Supreme Court declared the Nebraska Campaign Finance Limitation Act (CFLA) unconstitutional, citing the 2011 Arizona decision as precedent:

In overturning the law, Nebraska’s high court cited a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court that struck down part of an Arizona law that gives money to publicly funded candidates facing privately funded opponents and independent groups.

The Arizona law was passed in the wake of a public corruption scandal and was intended to reward candidates who forgo raising campaign cash, even in the face of opponents’ heavy spending fueled by private money.

But the court said the Arizona law violated the First Amendment.

“Laws like Arizona’s matching funds provision that inhibit robust and wide-open political debate without sufficient justification cannot stand,” Chief Justice John Roberts said in the court’s majority opinion.

Despite Jack Gould of Common Cause lamenting the decision as “a sad day for Nebraska,” there’s little doubt that the Nebraska program was similar enough to the parts of the Arizona law that were ultimately struck down that the state had little choice but to declare it unconstitutional or risk running afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court. And, no disrespect intended Mr. Gould, but we think this is indeed a very good thing for the state of Nebraska and for free speech in general. After all, these programs have been shown to produce  rather than inhibit corruption and the results are well documented. Over and over. And over again.

Well done Nebraska. Here’s hoping other states follow in your wise footsteps.

Sarah Lee

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap