On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in McComish v. Bennett, a case involving the “trigger fund” mechanism in Arizona’s Clean Elections system—the first time in 35 years the Court will assess the constitutionality of a public financing law. In 1976, the Supreme Court strongly reaffirmed voluntary public financing in the Buckley v. Valeo Case and they have a chance to do it again with McComish.

Basically, opponents of Clean Elections in Arizona say that the “trigger fund” mechanism—which provides publicly financed candidates additional funds if they are outspent by privately financed opponents or outside groups--chills the First Amendment rights of nonparticipating candidates. This assumes that privately-financed opponents or outside groups have actually reduced their spending due to Clean Elections, which, as Professor Michael Miller states, is just not true:

There is no existing evidence that non-participating candidates raise less money in Clean Elections systems. In an excellent amicus brief, Costas Panagopoulos, Ryan Enos, Conor Dowling, and Anthony Fowler report no evidence of reduced spending by non-participating candidates. Furthermore, in the very piece that the petitioners cite to justify their case, I show that rather than halting their spending, traditional candidates have merely adjusted their financial activity to game the system; they still raise and spend money, but at the very last minute--too late for their opponents to receive matching funds.”

In reality, Arizona Clean Elections – and similar systems in Maine, Connecticut, and North Carolina – only serve to boost speech and encourage participation in our political system. It allows candidates from diverse backgrounds to run for office free of the influence of special interest money.

As Arizona State Senator Rebecca Rios told Public Campaign last year, Clean Elections, “really encourages you to get out there and meet and talk with constituents. It really helps in terms of the grassroots support that you gain. You really feel free to vote your conscience and vote what’s best for your district – you don’t feel like you owe anything to any particular organization.”

In a system often focused on who can raise the most money instead of who can talk to the most people, it’s a refreshing change.

Alongside our friends at the Brennan Center for Justice and the Campaign Legal Center, a diverse group of people and organizations have submitted “friends of the court” briefs including former elected officials, business leaders, political science professors, and the Committee for Economic Development.

“I think [Clean Elections] changes the dynamics of the debate in your state on a whole variety of issues, and it brings in candidates that are going to have an opinion that are not going to be necessarily tied to special interests,” Arizona Rep. David Lujan once said.

He’s right. In a post-Citizens United world that allows outside groups to spend unlimited sums to elect their candidates of choice, that forces candidates to spend more time dialing for dollars then talking to voters, systems like Arizona’s Clean Elections offer one of the few tools left to allow candidates to run for office without relying on special interest cash and the strings that come with it.

If the Court strikes down Clean Elections, the result will be less speech, not more, in Arizona. The Supreme Court should uphold the law as a boost for political speech.

We’ll likely find out sometime in June what the Court decides.