View source for Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett

{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
|Litigants=Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett
|ArgueDate=March 28
|ArgueYear=2011
|DecideDate=June 27
|DecideYear=2011
|FullName=Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Ken Bennett, in his official capacity as Arizona Secretary of State, et al.
|USVol=564
|USPage=721
|ParallelCitations=131 S. Ct. 2806; 180 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 664
|Prior=''McComish v. Bennett'', 611 [[F.3d]] [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20100623175 510] ([[9th Cir.]] 2010); [[Certiorari|cert]]. granted, {{ussc|562|1060|2010|el=no}}.
|Subsequent=''McComish v. Bennett'', 653 [[F.3d]] [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20110810122 1106] (9th Cir. 2011)
|Holding=Arizona's matching funds scheme substantially burdens political speech and is not sufficiently justified by a compelling interest to survive First Amendment scrutiny.
|Majority=Roberts
|JoinMajority=Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
|Dissent=Kagan
|JoinDissent=Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
|LawsApplied=[[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. I]]
}}
'''''Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett''''', 564 U.S. 721 (2011), is a decision by the [[Supreme Court of the United States]].
==Facts==
In 1998, [[Arizona]] voters approved the ballot measure known as the [[Clean Elections]] Act.  When it was passed, the Clean Elections law established public financing for candidates running for office. Candidates who choose to participate in the system must collect a specific number of five dollar donations.<ref>564 US at 2813</ref> Under the law as passed, if a participating candidate is outspent by a non-participating opponent (including the opponent's expenditures of personal funds) the participating candidate receives government funds matching the money spent by the non-participating candidate, up to three times the original government subsidy. Independent expenditures by groups not coordinated with the candidate were also matched.{{sfn|Ansolabehere|2011|p=55}}<ref>564 US at 2813-6</ref>
==Legal history==
The plaintiffs filed a legal challenge against the Arizona Clean Elections Commission on August 21, 2008, in the [[United States District Court for the District of Arizona]]. According to the Plaintiffs, the Clean Elections system produced a chilling effect on speech because it "seeks to equalize funding."<ref>Fischer, Howard.[http://goldwaterinstitute.org/article/suit-seeks-derail-arizs-clean-elections-law-1 "Suit seeks to derail Ariz.'s Clean Elections Law"], ''The East Valley Tribune'', August 23, 2008.</ref>  But advocates of the Clean Elections law argued that the system deters corruption because candidates do not have to cater to special interest groups.
In January 2010 the district court decided the matching funds provision violated the First Amendment and issued an injunction. <ref name="goldwaterinstitute1">[http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/mccomish-v-bennett-clean-elections "McComish v. Bennett (Clean Elections)"], The Goldwater Institute.</ref> District Court Judge Roslyn Silver agreed with the plaintiffs that the matching funds provision could not stand under Davis, although she referred to the result as "illogical" and referred to the holding in ''Davis'' as "an [[ipse dixit]] unsupported by the slightest veneer of reasoning to hide the obvious judicial fiat by which it is reached."<ref>Beard Rau, Alia and Mary Jo Pitzl.[http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/01/20/20100120campaign-finance-arizona-judge-strikes-down.html "Federal judge strikes down Ariz. Matching funds"], ''The Arizona Republic'', January 21, 2010.</ref>
Silver suspended her order while the Arizona Clean Elections Commission appealed to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]].  The case was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court on April 12, 2010.  The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the matching funds provision of Arizona's law was analytically distinct from the millionaire's amendment.<ref>[http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/05/election-subsidy-challenged/ "Election Subsidy Challenged"]. Scotus Blog, May 25, 2010.</ref><ref name="goldwaterinstitute1"/>
Two years earlier the Supreme Court had decided, in ''[[Davis v. Federal Election Commission]]'' (2008), to strike down a provision of the [[Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act]] (BCRA) known as the Millionaire's Amendment that allowed candidates to raise campaign contributions at three times the normal contribution limit and receive unlimited coordinated party expenditures if their opponent spent over $350,000 of their own personal money.{{sfn|Ansolabehere|2011|p=58-9}}
Writing for the Court in ''Davis'', Justice [[Samuel Alito]] said the burden the Millionaire's Amendment imposed on candidates was impermissible because "it attaches as a consequence of a statutorily imposed choice". In other words, the statute imposed a burden on candidates who did not limit expenditures of their personal wealth to $350,000.{{sfn|Ansolabehere|2011|p=59}}
The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of ''McComish''. (This case was consolidated with ''Arizona Free Enterprise Club Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett'' prior to consideration by the Supreme Court.)<ref>{{cite news|last=Liptak|first=Adam|title=Justices to Assess Arizona Campaign Financing|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/us/30scotus.html|access-date=3 December 2013|newspaper=The New York Times|date=29 November 2010}}</ref>  Oral arguments were heard March 28, 2011. On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and declared matching funds schemes designed to "level the playing field" unconstitutional in a 5–4 decision.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/arizona-free-enterprise-clubs-freedom-club-pac-v-bennett/|title=Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett|website=SCOTUSblog|language=en|access-date=2019-03-02}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2011/06/the-last-week-of-the-term-in-plain-english/|title=The last week of the Term: In Plain English|last=McElroy|first=Lisa|date=2011-06-28|website=SCOTUSblog|language=en|access-date=2019-03-02}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.npr.org/2011/06/27/137455185/top-court-strikes-down-ariz-campaign-finance-law|title=High Court Overturns Ariz. Campaign Finance Law|last=Overby|first=Peter|date=June 27, 2011|website=National Public Radio|language=en|access-date=2019-03-02}}</ref>
==Supreme Court==
The Court found the Clean Elections Act imposed a heavier burden on candidate speech than the Millionaire's Amendment because candidates benefiting from the Clean Elections Act received public funds automatically when their opponent spent money, even for uncoordinated expenditures made by independent groups. Candidates benefiting from the increased contribution limits in ''Davis'' still had to raise money from supporters. They did not receive public funds automatically based on an opponent's expenditures.{{sfn|Ansolabehere|2011|p=60}}
Independent expenditures have been constitutionally protected since ''[[Buckley v. Valeo]]'' and the Court found that the Clean Elections Act placed a burden on groups making protected independent expenditures by forcing them to choose between speaking about issues instead of candidates or triggering the matching funds provision.{{sfn|Ansolabehere|2011|p=61}}
==Case timeline==
'''August 21, 2008''': Case filed in U.S. District Court.
'''July 17, 2009''': Deadline for opposition brief.
'''July 31, 2009''': Deadline for reply brief.
'''August 7, 2009''': Hearing deadline.
'''January 5, 2010''': Plaintiffs file preliminary injunction asking Judge Roslyn O. Silver to stop the issuance of matching funds for the 2010 election.
'''January 15, 2010''': Hearing on motions for summary judgment
'''January 20, 2010''': Judge Silver strikes down Clean Elections as unconstitutional, but puts a stay on her order that allows for the state to appeal.
'''January 27, 2010''': Plaintiffs ask 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to remove the stay and strike down the Matching Funds provision of Clean Elections immediately. It is refused.
'''February 3, 2010''': Plaintiffs file emergency appeal to repeal the stay on Judge Silver's order with Supreme Court Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]]. The appeal is refused and gives the 9th Circuit until June 1 to rule on the appeal by the state.
'''May 21, 2010''': 9th Circuit rules in favor of the state in appeal, saying that Clean Elections' Matching Funds is constitutional.<ref>''McComish v. Bennett'', {{cite court |vol=611 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=510 |court=[[9th Cir.]] |date=2010 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20100623175 |access-date=2019-01-07 }}</ref>
'''May 24, 2010''': Plaintiffs file emergency [[Vacatur|motion to vacate]] the stay with the [[Supreme Court of the United States]].
'''June 1, 2010''': The Court refuses the stay request on the grounds that Goldwater must state, and had not stated, an intent to appeal the Ninth Circuit decision.<ref>[http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/09A1133_McComish_v_Bennett.pdf "Order in Pending Case"] Unsigned, U.S. Supreme Court, June 1, 2010, as posted at www.scotusblog.com</ref> Goldwater files a third application to lift stay adding its intent to appeal the 9th Circuit's decision.
'''June 8, 2010''': The Supreme Court blocks the distribution of Clean Elections for 2010, removing the district court's stay.<ref>[http://goldwaterinstitute.org/sites/default/files/AZ-order-by-SCt-6-810.pdf "McComish v. Bennett. United States Supreme Court. 8 June 2010. Print."]</ref>
'''August 17, 2010''': Plaintiffs lawyers make formal appeal to the Supreme Court.
'''November 29, 2010''': Supreme Court agrees to consider formal appeal.<ref>[http://goldwaterinstitute.org/sites/default/files/112910zor%204.pdf "Order List. United States Supreme Court. 29 November 2010. Print"]</ref>
'''March 28, 2011''': Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments.<ref>[http://goldwaterinstitute.org/sites/default/files/10-238%20and%2010-239%20rb.pdf "Brief for Petitioners. United States Supreme Court. 12 January 2011. Print"]</ref>
'''June 27, 2011''': Supreme Court reverses Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and declares matching funds unconstitutional.<ref>{{ussc|name=Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett|volume=564|page=721|pin=|year=2011}}.</ref>
==References==
{{Reflist}}
==Sources==
*{{cite journal |last1=Ansolabehere |first1=Stephen |title=Ansolabehere S. Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett and the Problem of Campaign Finance . Supreme Court Review. 2011;2011 (1) :39-79. |journal=Supreme Court Review |date=2011 |url=https://scholar.harvard.edu/sansolabehere/publications/arizona-free-enterprise-v-bennett-and-problem-campaign-finance}}
==External links==
* {{caselaw source
| case = ''Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett'', {{ussc|564|721|2011|el=no}}
| googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6705113472875971071
| justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/564/721/
| oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/10-238
| other_source1 = Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)
| other_url1 =https://web.archive.org/web/0/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-238.pdf
}}
{{US1stAmendment Freedom of Speech Clause Supreme Court case law|state=collapsed}}
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court]]
[[Category:2013 in United States case law]]
[[Category:United States Free Speech Clause case law]]
[[Category:Legal history of Arizona]]
[[Category:Political history of Arizona]]
[[Category:United States elections case law]]