Two weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in McComish v. Bennett, a challenge to the “triggered matching funds provisions” of Arizona’s successful public-financing program. Many have speculated as to the potential impact of the case: Would an adverse ruling invalidate only the “triggers” of Arizona’s program or also imperil public financing more broadly?
Unfortunately, the impact of McComish could extend even beyond the sphere of public financing. A troubling and little-noticed aspect of the petitioners’ case is their attempt to absolutely discredit the so-called “equalizing rationale” for campaign-finance regulation. The equalizing rationale — which encompasses an interest in ensuring that wealth is not a prerequisite for running for public office and in enabling citizens of all economic brackets to meaningfully influence elections — has long played a part in the public thinking on campaign-finance reform.
