On Friday, a federal district judge struck down the trigger fund portion of North Carolina’s judicial public financing system, an expected though unfortunate judgment following the Roberts Court’s 2011 decision in Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett.

Previously in North Carolina, if a publicly financed judicial candidate, or “Voter-Owned” candidate, was outspent by a privately financed opponent or expenditures by outside groups, the Voter-Owned candidate would receive “rescue funds” to maintain an equal footing. The rationale for these funds was clear. They expanded messages heard by voters, allowing a publicly funded candidate to answer back to opposition, without requiring the candidate to rely on deep-pocket campaign donors.

The district judge found that these trigger or “rescue” funds unconstitutionally burdened the free speech of privately financed candidates, based on the Court’s previous Arizona decision. Saying that more speech means “chilled speech” defies common sense logic. While the public financing system will remain in place, the removal of trigger funds makes it less appealing to candidates.

This system has had broad support among candidates and voters. In fact, 47 of 61 (77%) of the candidates in contested races for the NC Supreme Court and Court of Appeals enrolled in the program in general elections from 2004 to 2010, according to Democracy North Carolina. It has been heralded by the American Bar Association as a “model of reform” that “increases public confidence in the courts by eliminating [the chase for] political contributions in judicial elections.”

The decision came just two days before presidential campaigns and super PACs filed their monthly fundraising reports, which included several six- and seven-figure contributions. Forty-nine people and organizations have now contributed $1 million or more to super PACs, bringing in $116 million this cycle. Thirty billionaires have funded Restore Our Future, the super PAC working to elect Mitt Romney. At the Congressional level, the percentage of money coming from small donors is as low as it has ever been.

Under current law and after a series of Roberts Court rulings, our elections risk being turned into a parlor game for a handful of ultra-wealthy businessmen. Systems like North Carolina’s judicial public financing program should be held up as examples of what works. It’s far better that candidates rely on a broad base of small dollar donors than risk the corruption of dependence on a few. Small donor systems raise up the voices of the many, promoting the treasured value of speech, rather than restricting it.

*Nick is the president and CEO of Public Campaign.