The Supreme Court recently heard a pair of challenges to an Arizona law that provides public financing for candidates who agree to forgo private contributions. In a recent NY Times editorial, Harvard Law School Professor Fried argues that while it might appear that the court, based on Citizens United, will be inclined to wipe away all regulation of campaign finance, that view would be mistaken.
Read the full article HERE.
SCOTUSblog doesn’t seem to think the chances are good that the law will be upheld.
I am in the camp that this law does not suppress speech; it equalizes. Kennedy seems to think that if a candidate’s speech triggers more speech by her opponents, that will chill speech. It seems like the candidate can still spend as much as she wants, she just can’t shout down less well-funded opponents, which in the end is good for democracy.