Entries in First Amendment (2)


Supreme Court Revisits Campaign Finance

Comstock/Thinkstock (WASHINGTON) -- The Supreme Court returned to the controversial issue of campaign finance Monday, hearing a constitutional challenge to Arizona's public financing system for political campaigns. Several of the conservative justices on the bench seemed skeptical of the constitutionality of the Arizona Citizen's Clean Elections Act. The law allows a candidate who qualifies for public financing to receive a lump-sum grant from the government if he or she refuses to accept private contributions.

But the law goes a step further than other public financing laws. It also says that participating candidates can qualify for additional matching funds from the government if their opponents who have chosen not to participate in public funding spend more than the initial grant. The matching funds provided by the government are capped at three times the initial grant.

Arizona voters passed the law in 1998 in the wake of political scandals in order to restore the public faith and diminish the influence of special interest money in campaign races. Supporters of the law say it encourages candidates to take public financing, promotes competition in races and also prevents corruption. But opponents of the law say that it forces non-participating candidates to limit their spending so they won't trigger the matching-fund provision.

Those opposed to the law say that by limiting spending, the law suppresses the free speech rights of the non-participating candidates. In court Monday, William R. Maurer, representing Arizona Free Enterprise Club, a political action committee that opposes the law, said that in an attempt to "level the playing field," the law actually worked as a disincentive for candidates to exercise their First Amendment rights.

Maurer has no objection to the public financing aspect of the law but rather to the government's giving additional funds to publicly financed candidates as a direct result of a privately financed candidate exceeding a spending limit.

The conservative justices on the bench were sympathetic to Maurer's argument.

"Just as a common-sense matter," Justice Anthony Kennedy asked, "if I'm someone with the capacity and the will to make an independent expenditure, why don't I think twice if this is going to generate an equal amount on the other side which might be better spent?"

Nick Dranias of the Goldwater Institute, who represents three state legislative candidates challenging the law, said Kennedy's comments went to the heart of the case. "Kennedy's inquiry highlights the fundamental way that Arizona's system chills free speech," he said.

But Bradley S. Phillips, who defended the law in court, said the matching funds system actually promotes speech by encouraging candidates to run.

Monday's hearing comes nearly a year after the court released the controversial and closely divided Citizen's United case that struck down laws banning corporate and union expenditures in federal campaigns.

The court is likely to rule on the issue by early summer.

Copyright 2011 ABC News Radio


Exclusive: O'Donnell Stands Ground on First Amendment Statement

Photo Courtesy - ABC News(NEW YORK) -- In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell strongly defended her statements on the separation of church and state but expressed regret for her "I'm Not a Witch" ad.

During Tuesday night's debate with Democratic opponent Chris Coons, O'Donnell challenged Coons to show where the Constitution requires separation of church and state, drawing swift criticism from her opponent, laughter from the audience and yet another media firestorm.

"It's really funny the way that the media reports things," she told ABC News.  "After that debate my team and I we were literally high fiving each other thinking that we had exposed he doesn't know the First Amendment, and then when we read the reports that said the opposite we were all like 'what?'"

O'Donnell explained her line of questioning to Coons was not because she didn't know the First Amendment, but to the make the point the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

"I asked him where in the Constitution is the phrase 'separation of church and state,'" O'Donnell recounted.  "He said the First Amendment.  I followed up with, 'Can you name the five freedoms that are guaranteed to us that are protected by the First Amendment?'  And he could not."

O'Donnell maintains she got the better of Coons.

The debate controversy is just the latest in a long string of incidents that have launched O'Donnell into the realm of a national celebrity.

Copyright 2010 ABC News Radio

ABC News Radio