Find Court Cases > Arizona Free Enterprise Club Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett

Arizona Free Enterprise Club Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett

Case Date: 03/28/2011
Docket No: none

Facts of the Case 

Arizona enacted a campaign finance law that provides matching funds to candidates who accept public financing. The law, passed in 1998, gives an initial sum to candidates for state office who accept public financing and then provides additional matching funds based on the amounts spent by privately financed opponents and by independent groups. In 2008, some Republican candidates and a political action committee, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, filed suit arguing that to avoid triggering matching funds for their opponents, they had to limit their spending and, in essence, their freedom of speech.

The U.S. District Court for District of Arizona found the matching-funds provision unconstitutional. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the case, saying it found "minimal" impact on freedom of speech.

Read the Briefs for this Case
  • Brief of Petitioners
  • Brief of Amicus Curiae Union for Reform Judaism In Support of Respondents
  • Reply Brief for Petitioners
  • Brief of Amicus Curiae the Wyoming Liberty Group In Support of Petitioners
  • Brief of the Yankee Institute for Public Policy as Amicus Curiae In Support of Petitioners
  • Brief for Petitioners
  • Brief Amici Curiae of Four Former Chairmen And One Former Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission Supporting Petitioners
  • Brief of Amici Curiae Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters of the United States, League of Women Voters of Arizona, Public Citizen, Citizens for Responsibility And Ethics In Washington, New Jersey Appleseed Public Interest Law Cente
  • Brief of Self-financing Candidates Congressman Bill Foster (ret.), Congressman Alan Grayson (ret.), Congressman Steve Kagen (ret.), Governor Angus King (ret.), Ned Lamont, Congressman Walt Minnick (ret.), Congressman Jared Polis, And Congressman John Yarm
  • Brief for Amici Curiae Anthony Corrado, Thomas Mann And Norman Ornstein In Support of Respondents
  • Brief of Former Officials of the American Civil Liberties Union as Amici Curiae In Support of Respondents
  • Brief of Amici Curiae Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, Lawrence Bliss, Pamela Jabar Trinward, Andrew O’brien, And David Van Wie In Support of Respondents
    • Question 

    Does the First Amendment prohibit linking the funds participating candidates receive in an election to the amount of money raised by or spent on behalf of their opponents?

    Argument Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett - Oral ArgumentFull Transcript Text  Download MP3Arizona Free Enterprise Club Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett - Opinion AnnouncementFull Transcript Text  Download MP3Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett - Opinion Announcement - DissentFull Transcript Text  Download MP3 Conclusion  Decision: 5 votes for Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC, 4 vote(s) against Legal provision: First Amendment

    Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court order in a decision by Chief Justice John Roberts. "Arizona's matching funds scheme substantially burdens political speech and is not sufficiently justified by a compelling interest to survive First Amendment scrutiny," the chief justice writing for the majority, noted that the holding does not contend that the First Amendment forbids all public financing. Meanwhile, Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. "The First Amendment’s core purpose is to foster a healthy, vibrant political system full of robust discussion and debate," Kagan argued, adding: "Nothing in Arizona's anti-corruption statute, the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act, violates this constitutional protection. To the contrary, the Act promotes the values underlying both the First Amendment and our entire Constitution by enhancing the 'opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people.'"