Campaign finance reformers are understandably disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision in McComish v. Bennett. Not only does it mark the second time in two years that the Court has ruled for plutocratic interests and against attempts to regulate the flow of money in elections, but the ruling itself is nonsense. Unless “restricting speech” is a euphemism for limiting wealthy interests, it doesn’t restrict speech to provide matching funds for candidates who accept public financing. As Scott Lemieux noted earlier today, “A voluntary public financing system is not a substantial burden on free speech, and even if it was, its justification is among the most compelling—preserving access to the political process.”
That said, the Court hasn't placed a complete lid on public financing. This was a narrow ruling that struck down a particular “trigger” provision that gave candidates extra funds to match a high-spending opponent. As the Campaign Finance Institute points out, the Court “left the door wide open for other forms of public financing.” The Fair Elections Now Act, which provides block grants for candidates who qualify through small donations, is still legal under the Supreme Court’s ruling, as is the current system for publicly financing presidential campaigns. And on a smaller scale, the New York City system, which matches small donor contributions with public funds, remain completely legal.
