WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservative justices signaled during oral arguments Monday that they will vote to strike down another campaign-funding law and make it clear that states and cities cannot try to “level the playing field” between candidates for public office.
The justices objected to part of an Arizona law that provides public funds to candidates for state office if they agree to forgo private fundraising. The disputed provision gives extra “matching funds” to candidates who face a well-funded and free-spending opponent.
Conservatives and libertarians in Arizona sued and argued that these extra funds unfairly penalized candidates who relied on private fundraising.
They lost in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the law and said it did not limit the free-speech rights of the candidates who depended on private funds.
The Supreme Court has been split 5-4 on campaign-funding cases, with the conservative bloc in the majority, and that split was evident again Monday.
Last year, the conservative majority said spending on political campaigns cannot be limited by law, even to prevent big corporations from using their profits to sway elections. They sounded just as determined Monday to make it clear that governments cannot seek to “equalize” spending between a well-funded candidate and a challenger who is trying to keep pace. If so, the court will deal another blow to liberal reformers who seek to limit the impact of money in politics.
Several states, including Maine, Connecticut and Florida, have adopted laws similar to Arizona’s, as have at least a dozen municipalities, including Los Angeles and New York.
“Under our precedents, leveling the playing field is not a legitimate state purpose,” Chief Justice John Roberts said. “I checked the Citizens Clean Election Commission website this morning, and it says that this act was passed to ‘level the playing field’ when it comes to running for office. Why isn’t that clear evidence that it’s unconstitutional?”
Justice Samuel Alito voiced the same view a few minutes later. The Arizona law, he said, “aims to allow the publicly financed candidates to run on the same footing as privately financed candidates. That’s leveling the playing field, isn’t it?”
The court’s liberal justices spoke up in defense of Arizona’s law, and an Obama administration lawyer joined the argument on Arizona’s side. But they appeared to be one vote short of majority.
The court is unlikely to hand down a decision in the case until June.
