In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court this month struck down Arizona’s provision of supplemental grants to publicly financed candidates who face high-spending opponents, reversing a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Opinions. The Arizona law is similar to the “trigger” provisions which were formerly part of Connecticut’s Citizens Elections Program but removed after they were found unconstitutional by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in July 2010.
The Court wrote that the supplemental grants unconstitutionally burden the free speech rights of nonparticipating candidates and independent expenditure groups. It also held that Arizona did not present sufficient evidence that the matching grants served an anticorruption interest.
