Arizona Campaign Finance (First Challenge)
Lavis v. Bayless
IJ Arizona Chapter Takes on Arizona’s “Clean Elections Act” (First Challenge)
Arizona’s “campaign finance reform” forces some people to pay for other people’s political speech—speech with which the individual being taxed often disagrees.
Arizona’s Clean Elections Act, which could prove a harbinger for nationwide public campaign financing efforts, was enacted by a narrow majority of the Arizona electorate in November 1998. The law creates a public financing system for candidates for state offices, accompanied by strict restrictions on campaign contribu-tions and funded partly by a state income tax credit for contri-butions to the fund. But hidden among the fine print were two other coerced revenue sources: fees imposed upon lobbyists (but only those who work for for-profit entities) and a surcharge on civil and criminal fines. People who incur such costs are forced to subsidize the speech of others.
Whatever one thinks of various campaign finance reform proposals, coerced support of political campaigns strikes at the heart of our First Amendment freedoms. Paramount among the protections of our Bill of Rights is the freedom to engage in political speech—or to refrain from doing so. As Thomas Jefferson declared, “[T]o compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.”
In this lawsuit, IJ challenged provisions of the Arizona Clean Elections Act that compel some individuals, against their will, to pay for the political speech of others. Ultimately, we were successful in striking down the lobbying fees, however, the surcharges on civil and criminal fines remain.