It hasn’t been a good few weeks for supporters of government leveling the political playing field.
The Supreme Court has prevented the state of Arizona from distributing so-called matching or rescue funds to candidates who accept tax subsidies facing candidates who opt out of the system. The Court will decide whether to take up the case on the merits this fall.
An appellate court recently ruled a similar system unconstitutional in Connecticut, using the rationale of a 2008 Supreme Court decision—Davis v. Federal Election Commission—to hold that a state may not punish a candidate for spending privately-raised money by matching her spending dollar-for-dollar with a government check.
The Connecticut legislature attempted to salvage the program by simply increasing the base grant from $3 million to $6 million, but Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a past supporter for Connecticut’s program, vetoed the change and derided the changes as turning the “Citizens’ Elections Program” into a “welfare program for politicians.” She has called for a special session and proposed a bill that would maintain the base grant level; it would also implement a discriminatory contribution limit for lobbyists (which is quite possibly unconstitutional).
Another important development is that an appellate court prevented the state of Florida from distributing rescue funds to Attorney General Bill McCollum, a gubernatorial candidate. Rick Scott, another Republican gubernatorial candidate, argued that Florida’s tax financing program has similar constitutional flaws to the other programs that were struck down, and the 11 Circuit issued a ruling preventing McCollum from collecting a state check to supplement his campaign coffers as Scott prepares to spend more than the $24.9 million threshold from his personal wealth.
Yesterday, Florida’s Secretary of State decided not to appeal the ruling. McCollum’s campaign, though, could still appeal. They have suggested that they may simply decide to challenge the state’s $500 contribution limit, which was implemented along with the tax financing program, to allow McCollum to raise funds to better match Scott. That would be a welcome development and a huge improvement over McCollum’s hypocritical stance that he opposes tax subsidies—just not for this race.
Despite these advances for political freedom, there’s still a long road ahead. The outcome of these court decisions is still unclear, although the outlook is bright. Groups that support more political speech regulation are pushing tax financing schemes in Congress, too. A coalition of organizations has announced a $15 million campaign to push tax financed campaigns at the congressional level. Sympathetic Members of Congress have also introduced a bill to attempt to salvage the failed presidential-level program, which President Obama opted out of in 2008.
These programs don’t have the constitutional flaw of rescue funds, but they share every other trait of tax financed campaigns: they redistribute taxpayer funds to candidates, providing welfare for politicians and subverting the political speech rights of Americans. As a recent report from the Government Accountability Office shows, proponents’ promises about the supposed benefits of tax financed campaigns have simply never materialized. That hasn’t stopped “reformers” from pushing these schemes, though.