Alliance Defending Freedom: It’s days away: The Supreme Court’s marriage decision is expected to come down on June 29.
The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a provision of a campaign financing system in Arizona that gives extra cash to publicly funded candidates who face privately funded rivals and independent groups.
SCOTUS Blog: The Court holds oral argument Monday on the constitutionality of Arizona’s system for using public funds to subsidize some state political candidates, a case with nationwide implications.
Associated Press: “The Supreme Court said Monday it will consider dismantling an Arizona rule that gives extra money to publicly funded candidates who face privately funded rivals.”
“The U.S. Supreme Court derailed a key part of Arizona’s campaign finance system on Tuesday by at least temporarily blocking extra money for publicly funded candidates outspent by privately financed rivals or targeted by independent groups’ spending.”
Tucson Citizen: “This morning, the Supreme Court denied a request the Goldwater Institute filed two weeks ago asking for an injunction to stop the use of matching funds this year. But the Court gave the Institute permission to file the request again along with an assurance that the Institute plans to appeal the recent opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that overruled the District Court and declared matching funds to be legal. A new request and a commitment to appeal the Ninth Circuit decision was filed this afternoon.”
KOLD.com: “The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to block the distribution of so-called “matching funds” to candidates running for office under Arizona’s Clean Elections law.”
SCOTUS Blog: “The law provides that those who opt for public funding get escalating subsidies if their non-subsidized candidates raise significantly greater amounts of private money. The candidates without subsidies contend that this curbs their First Amendment right to raise and spend money, penalizing them by turning their added campaign efforts into further underwriting for their opponents. Their application (09A1133) in McComish, et al., v. Bennett, et al . . .”