Public Campaign

Donate Now
Follow us On:
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Fair Facts
  • Get Involved
  • Voter Blog
  • Press Room
  • About Us

Editorial Coverage of the McComish v. Bennett Supreme Court Decision

Submitted by John Papagiannis on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 19:09

Newspapers from all over the country have been opining on Monday's Supreme Court decision in McComish v. Bennett that struck down one provision of some existing Clean Elections systems, while upholding the constitutionality of public financing programs in general.

Here's a round up of editorials so far:

  • USA Today: "So the big news from Monday's ruling wasn't that the Arizona law was struck down, but that the majority said it had no interest in killing public financing altogether. For anyone fed up with government going to the highest bidder, that's reassuring."
  • New York Times: "The ruling left in place other public financing systems without such trigger provisions, including public financing for presidential elections. It shows, however, how little the court cares about the interest of citizens in Arizona or elsewhere in keeping their electoral politics clean."
  • Washington Post: "But the court turned the First Amendment on its head in rejecting the rest of the Arizona system. The law did not squelch speech; it encouraged it — all the better for voters, who were given a broader array of candidates from which to choose."
  • From Maine--The Sun Journal:"To the court, it was less about protecting the little guy's right to be heard than preserving the big guy's ability to dominate the conversation."
  • Arizona Daily Sun: "We think the real losers are the voters of Arizona, thanks to a U.S. Supreme Court that has weakened badly needed and broadly supported election reform on behalf of a narrow, privately funded minority. We hope Arizona voters will support Clean Elections even more vigorously, not less."
  • From Kentucky--The Courier Journal: "Preposterously, the majority (which at least did not strike down the constitutionality of public financing) argued that the law suppressed free speech, because privately financed candidates might restrict their campaigning in order to avoid allowing opponents to qualify for the extra money. Say what?"
  • And here's an editorial cartoon from the Washington Post.

For a full wrap-up of McComish-related statements, press releases, and news stories, click here.

 

  • editorial
  • McComish v. Bennett
  • Supreme Court
  • Login or register to post comments

Recent Blog Posts

Pelosi Commits to Campaign Finance Reform on ABC's "This Week"
May 21, 2012
This Sunday, May 20, 2012, Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif. 23) sat down with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” and reaffirmed her commitment to campaign finance reform....

Clips Round-up for 5/21/12
May 21, 2012
In an interview with George Stephanopoulos this weekend, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said, "What I would like to see in this election is a recognition that we must reduce the role of money...

JPMorgan's PAC Donations - April 2012
May 18, 2012
Congressional hearings are likely to begin soon concerning the $3 billion JPMorgan Chase lost through risky trading practices. The bank, like most with an interest in Washington business, has a...

Senators Rewarded for Oil Subsidies Vote
May 18, 2012
On March 29th, the U.S. Senate failed to pass legislation to end billions of dollars in wasteful subsidies to oil companies. In the month after the vote, seven Senators were rewarded for their “no”...

View All Blog Posts
  • Privacy Policy

Public Campaign

1133 19th Street, NW 9th Floor Washington, DC 20036
  • info@publicampaign.org
  • 202.640.5600
  • 202.640.5601