arizona free enterprise club freedom club pac et al bennett secretary state arizona et argued march decided june arizona citizens clean elections act created public financing system fund primary general election campaigns candidates state office candidates opt participate accept certain campaign restrictions obligations granted initial outlay public funds conduct campaign also granted additional matching funds privately financed candidate expenditures combined expenditures independent groups made support privately financed candidate opposition publicly financed candidate exceed publicly financed candidate initial state allotment matching funds triggered publicly financed candidate receives roughly one dollar every dollar raised spent privately financed candidate including money privately financed candidate spends campaign every dollar spent independent groups support privately financed candidate multiple publicly financed candidates race one receives matching funds result spending privately financed candidates independent expenditure groups matching funds top two times initial grant publicly financed candidate petitioners past future arizona candidates two independent expenditure groups spend money support oppose arizona candidates challenged constitutionality matching funds provision arguing unconstitutionally penalizes speech burdens ability fully exercise first amendment rights district entered permanent injunction enforcement matching funds provision ninth circuit reversed concluding provision imposed minimal burden burden justified arizona interest reducing quid pro quo political corruption held arizona matching funds scheme substantially burdens political speech sufficiently justified compelling interest survive first amendment scrutiny pp matching funds provision imposes substantial burden speech privately financed candidates independent expenditure groups pp petitioners contend political speech substantially burdened way speech burdened millionaire amendment bipartisan campaign reform act invalidated davis federal election law permitted opponent candidate spent personal funds collect triple normal contribution amount candidate spent personal funds remained subject original contribution cap unconstitutionally forced candidate choose first amendment right engage unfettered political speech subjection discriminatory fundraising limitations unprecedented penalty impose substantial burden exercise first amendment right use personal funds campaign speech justified compelling government interest pp logic davis largely controls privately financed candidate raised spent state initial grant publicly financed candidate personal dollar privately financed candidate spends results award almost one additional dollar opponent privately financed candidate must shoulder special potentially significant burden choosing exercise first amendment right spend funds candidacy law issue davis imposed burden candidate speech arizona law unquestionably well differences matching funds provision law struck davis make arizona law constitutionally problematic less first penalty davis consisted raising contribution limits one candidate still raise additional funds direct automatic release public money publicly financed candidate imposes far heavier burden second elections multiple publicly financed candidates frequent occurrence arizona matching funds provision create multiplier effect dollar spent privately funded candidate results additional dollar funding candidate publicly financed opponents third unlike law davis extent privately financed candidate hands spending independent expenditure groups promote privately financed candidate election triggers matching funds regardless whether support welcome helpful funds go directly publicly funded candidate use sees fit disparity control giving money directly publicly financed candidate response independent expenditures coordinated privately funded candidate substantial advantage publicly funded candidate burdens matching funds impose independent expenditure groups akin imposed privately financed candidates money spent behalf privately financed candidate opposition publicly funded candidate money publicly funded candidate receives state effect dollar spent election speech guaranteed financial payout publicly funded candidate group opposes spending one dollar result flow dollars multiple candidates ways burdens imposed independent groups matching funds severe burdens imposed privately financed candidates independent groups course eligible public financing result groups avoid matching funds changing message choosing speak altogether presenting independent expenditure groups choice trigger matching funds change message speak makes matching funds provision particularly burdensome groups certainly contravenes fundamental rule protection first amendment speaker autonomy choose content message hurley gay lesbian bisexual group boston pp arguments arizona clean elections institute amicus attempting explain away existence significance burden imposed matching funds unpersuasive arizona correctly points law different law invalidated davis doubt burden speech significantly greater davis arizona argues provision actually creates speech even case speech publicly financed candidates increased state law burdening speech privately financed candidates independent expenditure groups increase speech others concept wholly foreign first amendment buckley valeo cf miami herald publishing tornillo candidate group forced express particular message mean matching funds provision burden speech especially since direct result speech monetary subsidy political rival precedents upholding government subsidies first amendment challenge provide support matching funds none subsidies issue cases granted response speech another burden privately financed candidates independent expenditure groups also analogized burden placed speakers disclosure disclaimer requirements upheld citizens federal election political candidate disclosure funding resources result cash windfall opponent affect respective disclosure obligations burden imposed matching funds provision evident inherent choice confronts privately financed candidates independent expenditure groups indeed every considered question davis concluded candidate independent group might spend money direct result spending additional funding political adversaries arizona correct candidates complain providing lump sum payment equivalent maximum state financing candidate obtain matching funds impermissible amount funding state provides constitutionally problematic manner funding provided direct response political speech privately financed candidates independent expenditure groups pp arizona matching funds provision compelling state interest davis supra pp ample support argument purpose matching funds provision level playing field terms candidate resources clearest evidence provision operates ensure campaign funding equal three times initial public funding allotment text arizona act confirms purpose provision setting matching funds regime titled equal funding candidates rev stat ann act regulations refer funds equalizing funds repeatedly rejected argument government compelling state interest leveling playing field justify undue burdens political speech see citizens supra burdens imposed matching funds justified pursuit interest pp even objective matching funds provision combat corruption level playing field burdens matching funds provision imposes protected political speech justified burdening candidate expenditure funds campaign state anticorruption interest indeed reliance personal funds reduces threat corruption davis supra see buckley supra burden independent expenditures also supported anticorruption interest expenditures political speech coordinated candidate citizens separation negates possibility expenditures result sort quid pro quo corruption case law concerned see moreover interest alleviating corrupting influence large contributions served contribution limitations buckley supra given arizona contribution limits austere nation strict disclosure requirements general availability public funding hard imagine marginal corruption deterrence generated matching funds provision state clean elections institute contend even matching funds provision directly serve anticorruption interest indirectly ensuring enough candidates participate state public funding system turn helps combat corruption fact burdening constitutionally protected speech might indirectly serve state anticorruption interest encouraging candidates take public financing establish constitutionality matching funds provision matching funds provision substantially burdens speech even greater extent law invalidated davis burdens justified desire level playing field much speech burdened matching funds provision pose danger corruption fact state may feel matching funds provision necessary allow calibrate public funding system achieve desired level participation without undue drain public resources sufficient justification burden flaw state argument apparent reasoning allow state logic award publicly financed candidates five dollars every dollar spent privately financed candidate force candidates wish run private funds pay fine order encourage participation public funding regime measures might well promote participation clearly suppress unacceptably alter political speech state chooses encourage participation public funding system matters never held state may burden political speech extent matching funds provision ensure adequate participation public funding system pp evaluating wisdom public financing means funding political candidacy business determining whether laws governing campaign finance violate first amendment government may engage public financing election campaigns significant governmental interest buckley goal creating viable public financing scheme pursued manner consistent first amendment arizona program gives money candidate direct response campaign speech opposing candidate independent group opposing candidate chosen accept public financing engaged political speech level set state goes far arizona matching funds provision substantially burdens speech privately financed candidates independent expenditure groups without serving compelling state interest pp reversed roberts delivered opinion scalia kennedy thomas alito joined kagan filed dissenting opinion ginsburg breyer sotomayor joined arizona free enterprise club freedom club pac et petitioners ken bennett official capacity arizona secretary state et al john mccomish et petitioners ken bennett official capacity arizona secretary state et al writs certiorari appeals ninth circuit june chief justice roberts delivered opinion arizona law candidates state office public financing receive additional money state direct response campaign activities privately financed candidates independent expenditure groups set spending limit exceeded publicly financed candidate receives roughly one dollar every dollar spent opposing privately financed candidate publicly financed candidate also receives roughly one dollar every dollar spent independent expenditure groups support privately financed candidate oppose publicly financed candidate hold arizona matching funds scheme substantially burdens protected political speech without serving compelling state interest therefore violates first amendment arizona citizens clean elections act passed initiative created voluntary public financing system fund primary general election campaigns candidates state office see rev stat ann et seq west supp eligible candidates governor secretary state attorney general treasurer superintendent public instruction corporation commission mine inspector state legislature house senate may opt receive public funding west supp eligibility contingent collection specified number contributions arizona voters west west supp acceptance certain campaign restrictions obligations publicly funded candidates must agree among things limit expenditure personal funds west supp participate least one public debate adhere overall expenditure cap return unspent public moneys state exchange accepting conditions participating candidates granted public funds conduct many cases initial allotment may whole state financial backing publicly funded candidate certain conditions met publicly funded candidates granted additional equalizing matching funds providing qual funding candidates matching funds available primary general elections primary matching funds triggered privately financed candidate expenditures combined expenditures independent groups made support privately financed candidate opposition publicly financed candidate exceed primary election allotment state funds publicly financed candidate general election matching funds triggered amount money privately financed candidate receives contributions combined expenditures independent groups made support privately financed candidate opposition publicly financed candidate exceed general election allotment state funds publicly candidate privately financed expenditures personal funds counted contributions purposes calculating matching funds general election see ibid citizens clean elections commission admin rule matching funds triggered additional privately financed candidate spends primary results one dollar additional state funding publicly financed opponent less reduction meant account fundraising expenses general election every dollar candidate receives contributions includes money candidate spends campaign results roughly one dollar additional state funding publicly financed opponent election privately funded candidate faces multiple publicly financed candidates one dollar raised spent privately candidate results almost one dollar increase public funding publicly financed candidates public financing cap exceeded additional expenditures independent groups result matching funds well spending independent groups behalf privately funded candidate opposition publicly funded candidate results matching funds independent expenditures made support publicly financed candidate result matching funds publicly financed candidates race ibid matching funds provision activated however independent expenditures made opposition privately financed candidate matching funds top two times initial authorized grant public funding publicly financed candidate arizona law privately financed candidate may raise spend unlimited funds subject contribution limits disclosure requirements contributions candidates statewide office limited per contributor per election cycle contributions legislative candidates limited per contributor per election cycle see dept state office secretary state contribution limits rev http election info internet materials visited june available clerk case file example may help clarify arizona matching funds provision operates arizona divided districts purposes electing members state house representatives district elects two representatives house biannually last general election number candidates competing two available seats district ranged two seven see state arizona official canvass general election report compiled issued arizona secretary state arizona fourth district three candidates two available house seats two candidates opted accept public funding one candidate chose operate campaign private funds election total funds contributed privately funded candidate added candidate expenditure personal funds expenditures supportive independent groups exceeded allocation public funds general election contested state house race matching funds provision triggered see citizens clean elections commission participating candidate guide election cycle point number different political activities result distribution matching funds example privately funded candidate spent money conduct direct mailing publicly funded opponents receive less offset privately funded candidate held fundraiser generated contributions publicly funded opponents receive independent expenditure group spent brochure expressing support privately financed candidate publicly financed candidates receive directly independent expenditure group spent brochure opposing one publicly financed candidates saying nothing privately financed candidate publicly financed candidates receive directly independent expenditure group spent brochure supporting one publicly financed candidates publicly financed candidate receive directly privately financed candidate receive nothing independent expenditure group spent brochure opposing privately financed candidate matching funds issued publicly financed candidate continue receive additional state money response fundraising spending privately financed candidate independent expenditure groups publicly financed candidate received total state funds three times initial allocation state house race petitioners case plaintiffs five past future candidates arizona state office four members house representatives arizona state treasurer two independent groups spend money support oppose arizona candidates filed suit challenging constitutionality matching funds provision candidates independent expenditure groups argued matching funds provision unconstitutionally penalized speech burdened ability fully exercise first amendment rights district agreed provision constitute substantial burden speech privately financed candidates award funds privately financed candidate opponent based privately financed candidate speech app pet cert internal quotation marks omitted held compelling interest served provision might justify burden imposed district entered permanent injunction enforcement matching funds provision stayed implementation injunction allow state file appeal appeals ninth circuit stayed district injunction pending appeal hearing case merits appeals reversed district appeals concluded matching funds provision imposes minimal burden first amendment rights actually prevent anyone speaking first place cap campaign expenditures view burden imposed matching funds provision justified provision bears substantial relation state important interest reducing quid pro quo political corruption stayed appeals decision vacated stay district injunction see later granted certiorari ii discussion public issues debate qualifications candidates integral operation system government buckley valeo per curiam result first amendment fullest urgent application speech campaign political office eu san francisco county democratic central quoting monitor patriot roy laws burden political speech accordingly subject strict scrutiny requires government prove restriction furthers compelling interest narrowly tailored achieve interest citizens federal election slip internal quotation marks omitted see federal election massachusetts citizens life applying principles invalidated restrictions campaign expenditures buckley supra restraints independent expenditures applied express advocacy groups massachusetts citizens life supra limits uncoordinated political party expenditures colorado republican federal campaign comm federal election opinion breyer colorado regulations barring unions nonprofit associations corporations making independent expenditures electioneering communication citizens supra slip time subjected strictures speech found less onerous lower level scrutiny upheld restrictions example finding restriction issue closely drawn serve sufficiently important interest see mcconnell federal election internal quotation marks omitted nixon shrink missouri government pac internal quotation marks omitted upheld limits contributions buckley supra caps coordinated party expenditures federal election colorado republican federal campaign colorado ii requirements political funding sources disclose identities citizens supra slip although speech candidates independent expenditure groups brought suit directly capped arizona matching funds provision parties contend political speech substantially burdened state law way speech burdened law recently found invalid davis federal election davis considered first amendment challenge millionaire amendment bipartisan campaign reform act amendment candidate house representatives spent personal funds new asymmetrical regulatory scheme came play opponent candidate exceeded limit permitted collect individual contributions per contributor three times normal contribution limit see ibid candidate spent personal funds limit remained subject original contribution cap davis argued scheme burden ed exercise first amendment right make unlimited expenditures personal funds effect enabling opponent raise money use money finance speech counteract ed thus diminishe effectiveness davis speech addressing constitutionality millionaire amendment acknowledged provision impose outright cap candidate personal expenditures nonetheless concluded amendment unconstitutional forced candidate choose first amendment right engage unfettered political speech subjection discriminatory fundraising limitations candidate chose spend money forced shoulder special potentially significant burden choice gave fundraising advantages candidate adversary ibid determined constituted unprecedented penalty impose substantial burden exercise first amendment right use personal funds campaign speech concluded government failed advance compelling interest justify burden logic davis largely controls approach case much like burden placed speech davis matching funds provision imposes unprecedented penalty candidate robustly exercises first amendment right provision vigorous exercise right use personal funds finance campaign speech leads advantages opponents competitive context electoral politics ibid privately financed candidate raised spent state initial grant publicly financed candidate personal dollar spent privately financed candidate results award almost one additional dollar opponent plainly forces privately financed candidate shoulder special potentially significant burden choosing exercise first amendment right spend funds behalf candidacy ibid law issue davis imposed burden candidate speech arizona law unquestionably well penalty imposed arizona matching funds provision different respects penalty imposed law struck davis differences make arizona law constitutionally problematic less see green party garfield first penalty davis consisted raising contribution limits one candidates candidate benefited increased limits still go raise funds may may able candidate therefore faced merely possibility opponent able raise additional funds contribution limits remained subject cap still held unprecedented penalty special potentially significant burden justified compelling state interest rigorous first amendment hurdle benefit publicly financed candidate direct automatic release public money far heavier burden davis second depending specifics election issue matching funds provision create multiplier effect arizona fourth district house election discussed see supra spending cap exceeded dollar spent privately funded candidate result additional dollar campaign funding candidate publicly financed opponents situation matching funds provision forces privately funded candidates fight political hydra sorts dollar spend generates two adversarial dollars response markedly significant burden davis third unlike law issue davis extent privately financed candidate hands even candidate opted spend less initial public financing cap spending independent expenditure groups promote privately financed candidate election regardless whether support welcome helpful trigger matching funds state money go directly publicly funded candidate use saw fit disparity control giving money directly publicly financed candidate response independent expenditures coordinated privately funded candidate substantial advantage publicly funded candidate candidate allocate money according campaign strategy privately financed candidate independent group expenditures triggered matching funds cf citizens slip absence prearrangement coordination expenditure candidate agent undermines value expenditure quoting buckley burdens regime places independent expenditure groups akin imposed privately financed candidates candidate independent group supports money spent candidate behalf opposition publicly funded candidate money publicly funded candidate receives state privately financed candidate effect dollar spent election speech guaranteed financial payout publicly funded candidate group opposes moreover spending one dollar result flow dollars multiple candidates group disapproves dollars directly controlled publicly funded candidate candidates ways burden arizona law imposes independent expenditure groups worse burden imposes privately financed candidates thus substantially worse burden found constitutionally impermissible davis candidate contemplating electoral run arizona surveys campaign landscape decides burdens imposed matching funds regime make privately funded campaign unattractive least option taking public financing independent expenditure groups course spending cap reached independent expenditure group wants support particular candidate candidate stand issue group avoid triggering matching funds one two ways group either opt change message one addressing merits candidates one addressing merits issue refrain speaking altogether presenting independent expenditure groups choice makes matching funds provision particularly burdensome groups forcing choice trigger matching funds change message speak certainly contravenes fundamental rule protection first amendment speaker autonomy choose content message hurley gay lesbian bisexual group boston cf citizens supra slip first amendment stands attempts disfavor certain subjects viewpoints federal election wisconsin right life opinion roberts argument speakers avoid burdens law changing say mean law complies first amendment arizona clean elections institute offer several arguments attempting explain away existence significance burden imposed matching funds none persuasive arizona contends matching funds provision distinguishable law invalidated davis state correctly points decision davis focused asymmetrical contribution limits imposed millionaire amendment see state asserts reach opinion limited asymmetrical contribution limits brief state respondents particular burden candidate speech faced davis whatever significance distinction general doubt burden speech significantly greater case davis means law like one davis must justified compelling state interest state argues matching funds provision actually results speech increas ing debate issues public concern arizona elections promot ing free open debate first amendment intended foster brief state respondents see brief respondent clean elections institute state view promotion first amendment ideals offsets burden law might impose speakers increase speech resulting arizona law one kind one kind publicly financed candidates burden imposed privately financed candidates independent expenditure groups reduces speech restriction amount money person group spend political communication campaign necessarily reduces quantity expression buckley thus even matching funds provision result speech publicly financed candidates speech general expense impermissibly burdening thus reducing speech privately financed candidates independent expenditure groups sort beggar thy neighbor approach free speech restrict ing speech elements society order enhance relative voice others wholly foreign first amendment rejected government efforts increase speech expense others outside campaign finance context miami herald publishing tornillo held unconstitutional florida law required newspaper assailing political candidate character allow candidate print reply explained statute case purported advance free discussion effect deter newspapers speaking first instance penalized newspaper expression pacific gas elec public util plurality opinion penalty concluded survive first amendment scrutiny arizona law imposes similar penalty state grants funds publicly financed candidates direct result speech privately financed candidates independent expenditure groups argument sort burden promotes free robust discussion persuasive arizona asserts candidate independent group personally express message disagrees government subsidize message disagrees brief state respondents quoting johanns livestock marketing true enough mean matching funds provision burden speech direct result speech financed candidates independent expenditure groups monetary subsidy political rival cash subsidy conferred response political speech penalizes speech greater extent directly millionaire amendment davis fact may result speech candidates adequate justification davis see disagreeing conclusion dissent relies cases upheld government subsidies first amendment challenge asserts never understood subsidy given one speaker constitute first amendment burden another post none cases one involved subsidy given direct response political speech another allow recipient counter speech nothing analysis employed cases suggests challenged subsidies survived first amendment scrutiny triggered someone else political state also argues appeals concluded burden privately financed candidates independent expenditure groups analogous burden placed speakers disclosure disclaimer requirements recently upheld citizens direct restrictions candidate independent expenditures see brief state respondents brief respondent clean elections institute analogy even close political candidate disclosure funding resources result cash windfall opponent affect respective disclosure obligations state clean elections institute assert candidates independent expenditure groups failed cite specific instances decided raise spend funds brief state respondents see failed present reliable evidence arizona triggered matching funds deter speech brief respondent clean elections institute see record case must review entirety support assertions see bose consumers union record contains examples specific candidates curtailing fundraising efforts actively discouraging supportive independent expenditures avoid triggering matching funds see app rick murphy dean martin app pet cert john mccomish tony bouie record also includes examples independent expenditure groups deciding speak opposition candidate app arizona taxpayers action committee support candidate club growth avoid triggering matching funds addition david primo expert involved case found privately financed candidates facing prospect triggering matching funds changed timing fundraising activities timing expenditures thus overall campaign strategy reply brief petitioner arizona free enterprise club afec freedom club pac et al see also listing additional sources evidence detailing burdens imposed matching funds provision brief petitioner afec freedom club pac et al afec brief brief petitioner mccomish et al state contends matching funds provision truly burdened speech privately financed candidates independent expenditure groups spending behalf privately financed candidates cluster triggering level phenomenon observed brief state respondents brief respondent clean elections institute come surprise hypothesis presupposes privately funded candidate spend money matching funds threshold simply taken matching funds first place furthermore arizona law takes account manner uncoordinated political activity awarding matching funds privately funded candidate wanted hover triggering level make guesses much receive form contributions supportive independent expenditures might well guess wrong addition candidates may willing bear burden spending cap candidate willing make law less burdensome see davis candidates may choose make personal expenditures support campaigns despite burdens imposed millionaire amendment change fact must shoulder special potentially significant burden make choice state made privately funded candidates pay fine run fact candidates might choose pay make fine less burdensome evidence support contention candidates independent expenditure groups matching funds provision burdens speech never easy prove negative candidates groups speak limited speech arizona law elkins event burden imposed matching funds provision evident inherent choice confronts privately financed candidates independent expenditure groups cf davis indeed even candidates sign public funding recognize burden matching funds impose private speech stating participate program matching funds discourage opponents special interest groups lobbyists campaigning gao campaign finance reform experiences two offered full public funding political candidates davis need empirical evidence determine law issue burdensome see requiring evidence burden whatsoever clear us every considered question davis candidate independent group might spend money direct result spending additional funding political adversaries see green party matching funds impose substantial burden exercise first amendment rights internal quotation marks omitted mccomish bennett matching funds create potential chilling effects impose first amendment burden scott roberts think obvious matching funds subsidy imposes burden privately financed candidates know doubts matching funds subsidy like one issue burdens speech privately financed candidates see also day holahan clear matching funds provisions infringe protected speech chilling effect political speech person group making triggering expenditure cited davis supra dissent disagreement little disagreement davis state correctly asserts candidates independent expenditure groups claim single lump sum payment publicly funded candidates equivalent maximum amount state financing candidate obtain matching funds impermissibly burden speech brief state respondents see tr oral arg state reasons providing money front burden speech providing piecemeal either state argues incremental administration necessary ensure public funding see brief state respondents arguments miss point amount funding state provides publicly financed candidates constitutionally problematic case manner funding provided direct response political speech privately financed candidates independent expenditure groups fact state matching mechanism may efficient alternatives may help state finding financing system avoid drain public resources post kagan dissenting moment first amendment permit state sacrifice speech efficiency riley national federation blind amicus contends roviding additional funds petitioners opponents make petitioners speech less effective thus substantially burden speech brief course one subscribe view electoral debate zero sum see afec brief see flaws perspective else equal advertisement supporting election candidate goes without response often effective advertisement directly controverted even publicly funded candidate decides use new money address different issue altogether end goal spending claim electoral victory opponent triggered additional state funding see davis arizona matching funds provision imposes substantial burden speech privately financed candidates independent expenditure groups stand unless compelling state interest quoting massachusetts citizens life debate parties case state interest served matching funds provision privately financed candidates independent expenditure groups contend provision works level electoral opportunities equalizing candidate resources influence brief petitioner mccomish et al see afec brief state clean elections institute counter provision furthers arizona interest preventing corruption appearance corruption brief state respondents brief respondent clean elections institute ample support argument matching funds provision seeks level playing field terms candidate resources clearest evidence course operation provision ensures campaign funding equal three times initial public funding allotment text citizens clean elections act confirms purpose provision setting matching funds regime titled equal funding candidates rev stat ann west supp act refers funds doled act matching mechanism triggered equalizing funds see regulations implementing matching funds provision refer funds equalizing funds well see citizens clean elections commission admin rule features arizona law reinforce understanding matching funds provision citizens clean election commission provide publicly financed candidates moneys matching funds provision envisions shortage funds statute allows publicly financed candidate accept private contributions bring total monies received candidate matching funds amount rev stat ann west limiting contributions course primary means upheld combat corruption buckley indeed state argues one principal ways matching funds provision combats corruption eliminating possibility quid pro quo private interests publicly funded candidates eliminating contributions candidates altogether see brief state respondents confronted choice fighting corruption equalizing speech drafters matching funds provision chose latter significantly undermines notion equal funding candidates provision meant serve interest interest equalizing repeatedly rejected argument government compelling state interest leveling playing field justify undue burdens political speech see citizens slip davis stated discriminatory contribution limits meant level electoral opportunities candidates different personal wealth serve legitimate government objective let alone compelling one internal quotation marks omitted buckley held limits overall campaign expenditures justified purported interest equalizing financial resources candidates see equalizing campaign resources might serve equalize opportunities candidates handicap candidate lacked substantial name recognition exposure views start campaign leveling electoral opportunities means making implementing judgments strengths permitted contribute outcome election davis supra dangerous enterprise one justify burdening protected speech dissent essentially dismisses concern see post needs taken seriously noted held legitimate government attempt equalize electoral opportunities manner basic intrusion government debate govern goes heart first amendment values leveling playing field sound like good thing democracy campaigning office game critically important form speech first amendment embodies choice nation comes speech guiding principle freedom unfettered interchange ideas whatever state may view fair buckley supra internal quotation marks omitted already noted state clean elections institute disavow interest leveling playing field instead assert equal funding candidates provision rev stat ann west supp serves state compelling interest combating corruption appearance corruption see davis supra wisconsin right life opinion roberts even ultimate objective matching funds provision combat corruption level playing field burdens matching funds provision imposes protected political speech justified burdening candidate expenditure funds campaign state anticorruption interest indeed said reliance personal funds reduces threat corruption discouraging use personal funds disserves anticorruption interest davis supra use personal funds reduces candidate dependence outside contributions thereby counteracts coercive pressures attendant risks abuse money politics buckley supra matching funds provision counts candidate expenditures money campaign contributions extent supported anticorruption interest also held independent expenditures give rise corruption appearance corruption citizens slip definition independent expenditure political speech presented electorate coordinated candidate slip circuit broken separation candidates independent expenditure groups negates possibility independent expenditures result sort quid pro quo corruption case law concerned see slip cf buckley including independent expenditures matching funds provision supported anticorruption interest observed past interest alleviating corrupting influence large contributions served contribution limitations arizona already austere contribution limits see randall sorrell plurality opinion contributions statewide candidates limited per contributor per election cycle contributions legislative candidates limited per contributor per election cycle see rev stat ann dept state office secretary state contribution limits see supra arizona also stringent fundraising disclosure requirements face ascetic contribution limits strict disclosure requirements general availability public funding hard imagine marginal corruption deterrence generated matching funds provision perhaps recognizing burdens matching funds provision places speech justified either means leveling playing field directly fighting corruption state clean elections institute offer another argument contend provision indirectly serves anticorruption interest ensuring enough candidates participate state public funding system turn helps combat see brief state respondents brief respondent clean elections institute said voluntary system public financing means eliminating improper influence large private contributions furthers significant governmental interest buckley supra fact burdening constitutionally protected speech might indirectly serve state anticorruption interest encouraging candidates take public financing establish constitutionality matching funds provision explained matching funds provision substantially burdens speech privately financed candidates independent groups even greater extent law invalidated davis explained burdens justified desire level playing field also explained much speech burdened matching funds provision precedents pose danger corruption light foregoing analysis fact state may feel matching funds provision necessary allow find public funding system post kagan dissenting achieve desired level participation without undue drain public resources sufficient justification burden flaw state argument apparent reasoning allow state logic grant publicly funded candidate five dollars matching funds every dollar privately financed opponent spent force candidates wish run private funds pay fine order encourage participation public funding regime measures might well promote participation public financing clearly suppress unacceptably alter political speech state chooses encourage participation public funding system matters never held state may burden political speech extent matching funds provision ensure adequate participation public funding system state chosen method unduly burdensome sufficiently justified survive first amendment scrutiny iii today call question wisdom public financing means funding political candidacy business determining whether laws governing campaign finance violate first amendment much business carrying responsibility past years upheld restrictions speech struck others see buckley supra upholding contribution limits striking expenditure limits colorado opinion breyer invalidating ban independent expenditures electioneering communication colorado ii upholding caps coordinated party expenditures davis invalidating asymmetrical contribution limits triggered candidate spending said governments may engage public financing election campaigns significant governmental interest state interest preventing corruption buckley goal creating viable public financing scheme pursued manner consistent first amendment dissent criticizes standing way people arizona want post whole point first amendment protect speakers unjustified government restrictions speech even restrictions reflect majority comes protected speech speaker sovereign arizona program gives money candidate direct response campaign speech opposing candidate independent group opposing candidate chosen accept public financing engaged political speech level set state professed purpose state law cause sufficient number candidates sign public financing see post subjects various restrictions speech go along program goes far arizona matching funds provision substantially burdens speech privately financed candidates independent expenditure groups without serving compelling state interest practically universal agreement major purpose first amendment protect free discussion governmental affairs includ ing discussions candidates buckley internal quotation marks omitted second alteration original agreement reflects national commitment principle debate public issues uninhibited robust ibid quoting new york times sullivan true said true today laws like arizona matching funds provision inhibit robust political debate without sufficient justification stand judgment appeals ninth circuit reversed ordered arizona free enterprise club freedom club pac et petitioners ken bennett official capacity arizona secretary state et al john mccomish et petitioners ken bennett official capacity arizona secretary state et al writs certiorari appeals ninth circuit june justice kagan justice ginsburg breyer justice sotomayor join dissenting imagine two plagued corrupt political system candidates public office accept large campaign contributions exchange promise assuming office rank donors interests ahead others result bargains politicians ignore public interest sound public policy languishes citizens lose confidence government recognizing cancerous effect corruption voters first state acting referendum enact several campaign finance measures previously approved cap campaign contributions require disclosure substantial donations create optional public financing program gives candidates fixed public subsidy refrain private fundraising measures work individuals bundle campaign contributions become indispensable candidates need money simple disclosure fails prevent shady dealing candidates choose participate public financing system sums provided make competitive privately financed opponents state remains afflicted corruption voters second state witnessed failure take different tack cleaning political system enact contribution limits disclosure requirements believe greatest hope eliminating corruption lies creating effective public financing program break candidates dependence large donors bundlers voters realize based first state experience program work unless candidates agree participate candidates participate know receive sufficient funding run competitive races voters enact program carefully adjusts money given officeholders use matching funds mechanism order provide assurance program discriminate candidate point view restrict person ability speak fact providing resources many candidates program creates speech thereby broadens public debate voters hoped program accomplishes mission restoring integrity political system second state rids corruption person familiar country core values devotion democratic well uninhibited robust debate new york times sullivan might expect celebrate least interfere second state success today majority holds second state system system produces honest government working behalf people clashes constitution first amendment majority insists requires us rely measures employed first state even failed break stranglehold special interests elected officials disagree first amendment core purpose foster healthy vibrant political system full robust discussion debate nothing arizona statute arizona citizens clean elections act violates constitutional protection contrary act promotes values underlying first amendment entire constitution enhancing opportunity free political discussion end government may responsive people internal quotation marks omitted therefore respectfully dissent campaign finance reform last century focused one key question prevent massive pools private money corrupting political system officeholder owes election wealthy contributors may act benefit alone rather behalf people recognized buckley valeo per curiam seminal campaign finance case large private contributions may result political quid pro quo undermine integrity democracy even contributions converted corrupt bargains still may weaken confidence political system public perceives opportunities abuse prevent corruption appearance corruption protect democratic system governance citizens implemented reforms designed curb power special interests among measures public financing elections emerged potentially potent mechanism preserve elected officials independence president theodore roosevelt proposed reform early state union address need collecting large campaign funds vanish said government provided appropriation proper legitimate running campaign condition party receiving campaign funds treasury forgo private fundraising cong rec idea remains straightforward candidates rely public rather private moneys beholden person elected feel obligation toward contributor republican nat comm fec supp sdny aff supplanting private cash elections public financing eliminates source political corruption reason public financing systems today dot national landscape almost adopted form public financing federal government presidential elections see garrett congressional research service report congress public financing congressional campaigns overview analysis federal program offers presidential candidates fixed public subsidy abstain private fundraising originated campaign finance law congress enacted heels watergate scandal congress explained time potentia abuse inherent privately funded elections clear congress view public financing represented way eliminate reliance large private contributions attendant danger corruption still ensuring wide range candidates access ballot emphasis deleted declared presidential public financing system buckley valeo congress stated created program welfare reduce deleterious influence large contributions political process well facilitate communication candidates electorate free candidates rigors fundraising reiterated public financing means improper influence large private contributions furthers significant governmental interest finally rejecting challenge based first amendment held program restrict censor speech rather use public money facilitate enlarge public discussion participation electoral process declared result vital people concluded program ed abridge pertinent first amendment values thus gave state municipal governments green light adopt public financing systems along presidential model model distributes grant beginning election cycle significant weakness lacks mechanism setting subsidy level give candidates sufficient incentive participate also conserving public resources public financing achieve goals meaningful number candidates receive state subsidy rather raise private funds see public financing system participants nothing reduce existence appearance quid pro quo corruption public funding program must voluntary pass constitutional muster restrictions contributions expenditures see buckley candidates choose sign subsidy provided enables run competitive races grant pegged low puts participating candidate disadvantage agreed spend amount subsidy lack means respond privately funded opponent spends threshold grants keep campaign expenditures candidates choose subsidy set high may impose unsustainable burden public fisc see noting large subsidies make public funding prohibitively expensive spell doom least hefty grants waste public resources many state races lack competition makes funding unnecessary difficulty finding goldilocks solution large small right world countless variables amount money needed run viable campaign privately funded candidate depends among things district office election cycle state may set grants based spending past elections even approach leaves many factors including resources privately funded candidate alter competitiveness seat one election next see app record evidence chronicling history variation campaign spending levels arizona legislative districts short dynamic nature electoral system makes ex ante predictions campaign expenditures almost impossible creates chronic problem public financing programs inaccurate estimates produce subsidies either dissuade candidates participating waste taxpayer money made adjustments scheme approved buckley attempts effectively reduce corruption people arizona every reason try develop effective measures turning financing arizonans voted referendum establish campaign contribution limits see rev stat ann west supp effort abate corruption standing alone proved unsuccessful five years enactment limits state suffered worst public corruption scandal history brief state respondents scandal known azscam nearly state legislators caught accepting campaign contributions bribes supporting piece legislation following incident voters arizona decided reform necessary acting referendum adopted public funding system issue hallmark arizona program inventive approach challenge bedevils public financing schemes fixing amount subsidy electoral contest system calibrates size grant automatically provide sufficient sufficient funds induce voluntary participation effect program designers found goldilocks solution produces right grant ensure participant system funds needed run competitive race explains arizona matching funds arrangement responds shortcoming model adjusting public subsidy race expenditures privately financed candidate independent groups support see rev stat ann et seq west west supp publicly financed candidate arizona receives initial get campaign ground see west every dollar privately funded opponent opponent supporters spends initial subsidy publicly funded candidate point get additional cents see west supp publicly financed candidate received three times amount initial disbursement gets public funding see remains barred receiving private contributions matter much privately funded opponent spends see arrangement like model makes use amount provide financial support participants example publicly funded legislative candidates collect initial grant general election race circumstances receive three times amount privately funded competitors hold marked advantage arizona system improves model crucial respect tying public funding private spending state afford set generous upper limit knows campaign disburse necessary keep candidate reasonably competitive arizona therefore assure candidates accept public funds resources run viable race rely private money time arizona avoids wasting taxpayers dollars way clean elections act creates effective sustainable public financing system question whether modest adjustment public financing program approved buckley makes arizona law unconstitutional majority contends matching funds provision substantially burdens protected political speech serv compelling state interest ante wrong counts ii arizona statute impose restriction ante substantia burde ante expression law quite opposite effect subsidizes produces political speech recognized buckley reason public financing elections facilitate enlarge public discussion support first amendment values said true today except world gone additional campaign speech electoral competition first amendment injury every turn majority tries convey arizona matching fund statute piece laws prohibiting electoral speech majority invokes language limits bar restraints ante equates law restrictio amount money person group spend political communication campaign ante internal quotation marks omitted insists statute speech elements society enhance speech others ibid internal quotation marks omitted concludes reminding us point first amendment protect unjustified government restrictions speech ante one problem arizona matching funds provision restrict instead subsidizes speech law impose ceiling speech es prevent anyone speaking citizens federal election slip citation internal quotation marks omitted see buckley holding public financing law abridge restrict censor expression statute tell candidates supporters much money spend convey message spend spend rather arizona law like public financing statute buckley provides funding political speech thus facilitat ing communication candidates enabling participating candidates respond opponents expression statute expands public debate adherence tradition speech less governing rule citizens slip law law fund first amendment makes difference case case year upon year distinguished speech restrictions speech basic difference held direct state interference first amendment protected activity state expression rust sullivan quoting maher roe see also federal election massachusetts citizens life regan taxation representation national endowment arts finley scalia concurring judgment noting fundamental divide speech funding government subsidies speech designed stimulate expression consistent first amendment long discriminate basis viewpoint board regents univ system southworth see rosenberger rector visitors univ finley subsidies definition contra majority restrict speech one claim arizona law discriminates particular ideas violates first amendment sole limitation speech subsidies state throws open doors public financing program candidates meet minimal eligibility requirements agree raise private funds republicans democrats conservatives liberals may participate law applies equally independent expenditure groups across political spectrum arizona disburses funds based candidate supporter ideas candidate decision sign public funding precedent arizona subsidy statute easily survive first amendment suit fact may merit less attention challenge speech subsidy ever seen usual first amendment subsidy case person complains government declined finance speech bankrolling someone else must decide whether government differentiated speakers prohibited basis preferred one speaker ideas another see regan candidates bringing challenge make claim never denied subsidy arizona remember offers support person running state office petitioners refused assistance making novel argument arizona violated first amendment rights disbursing funds speakers even though received chose spurn financial assistance people might call chutzpah indeed petitioners demand essentially right quash others speech prohibition universally available subsidy program petitioners able convey ideas without public financing prefer field speak free response attain goal ask prevent arizona funding electoral speech even though assistance offered every state candidate entirely unobjectionable basis gladly obliges ordinary citizen without hindrance law degree thought result upending first amendment values correct amendment protects person candidate right free vigorous debate pacific gas elec public util plurality opinion indeed amendment exists occur robust forceful contested theory free speech clause falsehood fallacies exposed discussion education speech whitney california brandeis concurring citizens ore speech less governing rule slip place true elections voters ability choose best representatives depends debate charge countercharge call response invalidate statute restricts one speech idea provides voices wider discussion greater competition elections undermine rather enforce first said buckley upheld presidential public financing system ruling never since questioned principal challenge system came candidates eligible benefits surely compelling plaintiffs petitioners received funding refused yet rejected attack part understood federal program supporting rather interfering expression see see also regan relying buckley hold selective subsidies expression comport first amendment viewpoint neutral buckley rejected idea along lines majority proposes subsidy electoral speech truth restraint buckley recognized public financing elections fosters first amendment principles central purpose speech press clauses explained assure society robust public debate concerning matters public interest thrive society healthy representative democracy flourish quoting new york times continued aws providing financial assistance exercise free speech including campaign finance statute issue enhance first amendment values saying today majority one one way separating case buckley many precedents involving speech subsidies according special problem lies arizona matching funds mechanism majority claims imposes substantia burde privately funded candidate speech ante sometimes majority suggests burden lies way mechanism es privately funded candidate expression enabling opponent respond ante quoting davis federal election see ante times majority indicates burden resides deterrent effect mechanism privately funded candidate might spend money trigger matching funds ante either way majority wrong see substantial burden important suggested notion additional speech constitutes burden odd unsettling simple fact arizona imposes nothing remotely resembling coercive penalty privately funded candidates state jail fine subject kind lesser disability majority analogies fine speech ante inapposite burden case comes grant subsidy another person opportunity subsidy allows responsive speech means majority get subsidy precedents never understood subsidy given one speaker constitute first amendment burden another even subsidy open yet case majority says prospect speech responsive speech competitive speech kind speech drives public debate counts constitutional injury concept reasons previously given wholly foreign first amendment buckley put one side fundamental objection majority argument even majority shown burden resulting arizona statute substantial see clingman beaver holding stringent judicial review appropriate burden severe quarrel majority assertion responsive speech one candidate may make another candidate speech less effective see ante whole idea first amendment benefit responsive speech see abrams dissenting best test truth power thought get accepted competition market assume operation statute may occasion deter privately funded candidate spending money conveying ideas guess happen often political candidates suspect enough faith power ideas prefer speech sides issue speech neither take faith matching funds provision may lead one another privately funded candidate stop spending one another moment election still effect count severe burden expression measure prior decisions upheld campaign reforms equal greater impact speech answer number one system public financing including model upheld buckley imposes similar burden privately funded candidates suppose arizona parties agree buckley provide single upfront payment say participating candidate rather initial payment plus whatever privately funded opponent spent ceiling system diminis effectiveness privately funded candidate speech least much way give opponent presumably able raise sum money spend system may deter speech person relying private resources might well choose enter race knows face adequately funded opponent even decides run likely choose speak different ways example eschewing dubious charges opponent ability respond indeed privately funded candidates may well find system burdensome arizona assuming lump big enough pretend financing campaign private donations prefer opponent receive guaranteed upfront payment receive possibility possibility mostly get control collecting another somewhere road first reason burden speech command different result case buckley number two decisions disclosure disclaimer requirements show wrong starting buckley continuing last term repeatedly declined view requirements first amendment burden even though campaign speech undoubtedly true stated buckley public disclosure obligations deter individuals engaging expressive activity see davis yet difficulty upholding requirements much recently citizens doe reed followed requirements may burden ability speak reasoned prevent anyone speaking slip quoting citizens slip like disclosure rule matching funds provision may occasionally deter impose ceiling electoral expression slip majority breezily dismisses comparison labeling analogy even close disclosure requirements result payment money speaker opponent ante indeed factual distinction matching fund provision agree disclosure rule majority tell us difference matters majority strikes matching funds provision ostensible effect notably may deter person spending money election acknowledged time disclosure obligations selfsame effect consequence trigger stringent judicial review one case number three burden arizona law imposes exceed burden associated limits also repeatedly upheld limits stated impose direct quantity restrictions political communication association buckley emphasis added thus ly interfer ing first amendment interests nixon shrink missouri government pac quoting buckley rather potentially deterring ing expressive activity ante quoting davis limits stop cold yet never subjected restrictions stringent review see buckley doubt reiterate arizona statute imposes restraints expressive activity majority reason reach different result way campaign finance cases join speech subsidy cases supporting constitutionality arizona law sets precedents accord statute funding electoral speech way arizona imposes first amendment injury majority thinks one case side davis federal election pegs everything decision see ante davis relies principles fit securely within first amendment law tradition unlike today opinion majority recounts davis addressed constitutionality federal legislation known millionaire amendment provision applied involving public financing candidate expenditure money activated change applicable contribution limits candidate race accept donor opponent candidate accept three times much per contributor one candidate expenditure personal funds campaign speech triggered discriminatory contribution restrictions favoring candidate opponent first amendment similarity davis case matters far less differences similarity cases one candidate campaign expenditure triggered something differences davis candidate expenditure triggered discriminatory speech restriction congress otherwise imposed consistent first amendment contrast case candidate expenditure triggers speech subsidy parties agree arizona provided first instance first amendment law difference makes difference indeed makes difference indicated two great fault lines run first amendment doctrine one speech restrictions speech subsidies discriminatory neutral government action see supra millionaire amendment fell disfavored side divides reiterate imposed discriminatory speech restriction arizona clean elections act lands opposite side grants speech say davis largely controls case ante decline take first amendment doctrine seriously let clear idiosyncratic post hoc view davis davis contemporaneous view decision began continued ended focusing millionaire amendment discriminatory contribution limits made clear first sentence opinion summarized question presented appeal consider constitutionality federal election law provisions impose different campaign contribution limits candidates focus law discriminatory restrictions evident examined prior holdings informed case never upheld constitutionality law imposes different contribution limits candidates concluded millionaire amendment stand explaining activation scheme discriminatory contribution limits burdens speech decision left doubt repeated point many times see also constitutional problem millionaire amendment lay use discriminatory speech restrictions trigger mechanism davis candidate campaign expenditures thing case davis share davis held trigger mechanism violated first amendment case support today holding davis said nothing kind made clear trigger mechanism rescue discriminatory contribution limits constitutional invalidity limits went effect candidate spent substantial personal resources rendered permissible first amendment see davis call question trigger mechanism indeed davis explained congress used mechanism activate increase contribution limits case stated davis argument plainly fail constitutional infirmity davis trigger mechanism rather lay side discriminatory speech restriction response points difficult fathom majority concedes decision davis focused asymmetrical contribution limits imposed millionaire amendment ante majority explains davis presented issue see ante yet majority insists without explaining true reach davis limited event majority claims burden speech greater case davis ante reasons already stated burden speech davis penalty spending triggered discriminatory contribution restriction congress otherwise imposed contrast thing triggered subsidy kind approved almost four decades maybe majority saying today something like case mind time nothing logic davis controls iii reasons errs holding government action case substantially burdens speech requires state offer compelling event arizona come forward interest explaining clean elections act attacks corruption appearance corruption state political system majority denigration interest suggestion either real matter wrongly prevents arizona protecting strength integrity democracy campaign finance precedents leave doubt preventing corruption appearance corruption compelling government interest see davis federal election national conservative political action ncpac precedents clear public financing elections serves interest see supra buckley recognized earlier described public financing reduce deleterious influence large contributions political process see private contributions fuel political system candidates may make corrupt bargains gain money needed win election see ncpac voters seeing dependence candidates large contributors bundlers smaller contributions may lose faith representatives serve public interest see shrink missouri assumption large donors call tune may jeopardize willingness voters take part democratic governance public financing addresses dangers minimizing importance private donors elections even majority appears agree premise see ante said financing means eliminating improper influence large private contributions furthers significant governmental compelling interest appears face arizona public financing statute start title citizens clean elections act proceed statute formal findings public financing program findings state inten ded create clean elections system improve integrity arizona state government diminishing influence money west measure needed prior system private fundraising ndermine public confidence integrity public officials allowed officials accept large campaign contributions private interests governmental jurisdiction favored small number wealthy special interests vast majority arizona citizens os average taxpayers millions dollars form subsidies special privileges campaign contributors state appearing us reiterated important interest clean elections act state avers deters quid pro quo corruption appearance corruption providing arizona candidates option run office without depending outside contributions brief state respondents arizona like many state local governments implemented public financing theory previously approved see supra way reduce political corruption diminish role private donors interest justifies matching funds provision issue critical facet arizona public financing program provision disbursement mechanism also thing makes whole clean elections act work described earlier see supra public financing achilles heel difficulty setting subsidy right amount small grant attract candidates program participating candidates program hardly decrease corruption large system becomes unsustainable least unnecessary drain public resources finding near impossible variation across districts time political system enter matching funds provision takes ordinary amount divides thirds disburses last two extent necessary via mechanism provision program approved buckley bears repeating prevents one speaking discriminates message make difference wholly ineffectual program one removes corruption political public financing furthers compelling interest according disbursement formula arizona uses make public financing effective one conclusion follows directly except inescapable logic state position virtually ignored sure repeatedly asserts state interest preventing corruption sufficiently justif mechanism chosen disburse public moneys ante see ante one thing missing response reasoning support conclusion nowhere majority dispute state view success public financing system depends matching funds mechanism nowhere majority contest mechanism indeed spells difference success failure state interest preventing corruption justifies use majority dismisses actually answer state contention even though contention linchpin entire case assuming reason precedent matching funds provision substantially burdens speech question becomes whether state offered sufficient justification imposing burden arizona made forceful argument score based need establish effective public system majority even engage reasoning majority instead devotes energy trying show level ing playing field fighting corruption state real goal ante internal quotation marks omitted see ante majority distaste leveling provides excuse striking arizona law starters basis question sincerity state interest rooting political corruption explained interest state asserted interest predominantly expressed findings declarations section statute interest universally understood stretching back teddy roosevelt time support public financing elections see supra majority claims found three smoking guns reveal state true nefarious intention level playing field smoke majority kind goes mirrors majority first observes matching funds provision titled funding refers matching grants funds ante quoting well yes statute provides matching funds certain thresholds synonym match equal statute uses term sum statute describes statute relevant question according majority analysis statute thing otherwise said interest statute serves state explains goal prevent corruption nothing act descriptive terms suggests objective next majority notes act allows participating candidates accept private contributions state provide funds promised example budget crisis ante citing provision majority argues shows push comes shove state cares leveling fighting corruption ante plain misreading law statute assure participating candidates left lurch public funds suddenly become unavailable guarantee helps persuade candidates enter program removing risk state default provision directly advances act goal combating corruption finally remarks clean elections commission website stated passed people arizona level playing field ante understand majority place much emphasis point members majority ridiculed practice relying subsequent statements legislators demonstrate earlier congress intent enacting statute see sullivan finkelstein scalia concurring part hayes roberts dissenting yet majority makes much stranger claim statement appearing government website written reveals hundreds thousands arizona voters sought enacted clean elections act referendum state proposition know wrong majority evidence zero none objective act anything interest state asserts act proclaims history public financing supports fighting corruption suppose majority come evidence showing arizona sought equalize electoral opportunities ante discovery matter precedent says long arizona compelling interest eliminating political corruption clearly circumstances interest state leveling irrelevant interest support arizona law assuming law burdened speech neither interest invalidate legislation see point consider matter might arise assume state two reasons pass statute affecting speech wants reduce corruption addition wishes level playing field first amendment law interest preventing corruption compelling may justify restraints speech interest leveling playing field according precedent support statute assuming met constitutional standards violate first amendment answer must never said law restricting speech constitutional right demands two compelling interests one enough statute one preventing corruption matter equalizing campaign speech insufficient interest statute violate first amendment equalizing qualified forbidden motive motive annul otherwise constitutional law never held surprising fundamental principle constitutional adjudication deviated exceptional cases strike otherwise constitutional statute basis alleged illicit legislative motive see declining invalidate statute congress undoubted power enact without suspect motive accord turner broadcasting system fcc renton playtime theatres law otherwise constitutional either restrict speech rests interest sufficient justify restriction end story proposition disposes case even arizona adjunct interest equalizing electoral opportunities special rule automatic invalidation applies statutes connection equality like laws pass muster supported enough government interest arizona demonstrated detail matching funds provision necessary serve compelling interest combating corruption hunt evidence leveling waste time arizona law survives constitutional scrutiny matter search uncover iv case arose arizonans wanted government work behalf state people heels political scandal involving purchase legislators votes arizonans passed law sever political candidates dependence large contributors wished many fellow americans wish stop corrupt dealing ensure representatives serve public wealthy donors helped put office legislation arizona voters enacted product deep thought care put effect public financing system attracted large numbers candidates sustainable cost state taxpayers system discriminated ideas prevented speech indeed increasing electoral competition enabling wide range candidates express views system ed first amendment values buckley citing new york times less corruption speech robust campaigns leading election representatives beholden accountable many people arizona might expected decent respect objectives today get invalidates arizonans efforts ensure state people possess absolute sovereignty quoting james madison elliot debates federal constitution precedent compels take step contrary today decision tension broad swaths first amendment doctrine fundamental principle constitution backs ruling contrary law struck today fostered vigorous competition ideas ultimate object government responsive people arizonans deserve better like citizens across country arizonans deserve government represents serves less arizonans deserve chance reform electoral system attain american goals truly democracy game see ante respectfully dissent footnotes together mccomish et al bennett secretary state arizona et also certiorari footnotes number qualifying contributions ranges candidate state legislature candidate governor rev stat ann west supp publicly financed candidates run unopposed run representative party primary may receive less funding candidates running contested elections see west maine north carolina passed matching funds statutes resemble arizona law see rev stat tit stat ann lexis minnesota connecticut florida also adopted matching funds provisions courts enjoined enforcement schemes concluding operation violates first amendment see day holahan green party garfield scott roberts judge bea dissented stay district injunction stating arizona public financing system unconstitutionally prefers publicly financed candidates matching funds scheme makes sense privately financed candidate independent expenditure group spend money poker player make bet knows house going match bet opponent app pet cert see one judge concurred relying primarily view arizona public financing scheme imposes limitations whatsoever candidate speech kleinfeld dissent sees chutzpah candidates exercising right participate public financing scheme objecting system violates first amendment rights see post opinion kagan charge unjustified event certainly leveled independent expenditure groups dissent barely mentions groups analysis fails address distinctive burdens imposed groups set forth also way privately financed candidates particularly burdened matching funds triggered independent group speech dissent also repeatedly argues arizona matching funds regime results political speech post emphasis original see post given logic dissent position step less speech matching funds provision achieves professed goal causes candidates switch public financing post less speech spending initial amount formerly privately financed candidates associated matching funds anyone level speech depend state judgment desirable amount amount tethered available often scarce state resources along lines invalidated government mandates speaker help disseminate hostile views opposing speaker message pacific gas elec public util plurality opinion pacific gas found public utility commission order forcing utility company disseminate billing envelopes views company opposed ran afoul first amendment case course distinguishable instant case facts central concern individual compelled help disseminate hostile views implicated well ibid candidate uses money engage speech initial public funding threshold forced help disseminate hostile views direct way speech triggers release state money opponent dissent cites buckley response see post funding buckley course triggered speech publicly funded candidate political opponent speech anyone else matter see whether arizona matching funds provision comports first amendment simply question whether state give subsidy candidate fund candidate election whether subsidy triggered speech another candidate independent group prior oral argument case citizens clean elections commission web site stated citizens clean elections act passed people arizona level playing field comes running office afec brief quoting http tr oral arg web site says citizens clean elections act passed people arizona restore citizen participation confidence political system state claims citizens clean elections act passed response rampant corruption arizona politics elected officials literally taking duffle bags full cash exchange sponsoring legislation brief state respondents may candidates independent expenditure groups point corruption plagued arizona politics largely unaddressed matching funds regime afec brief public financing nothing prevent politicians accepting bribes exchange votes footnotes problem apparent federal system recent years number presidential candidates opting receive public financing declined subsidy kept pace spending privately financed candidates see corrado public funding presidential campaigns new campaign finance sourcebook corrado mann ortiz potter eds last election cycle offers stark example barack obama raised million private funds federal election commission presidential campaign financial activity summarized june online http contrast million received public funds see federal election commission presidential election campaign fund online http internet materials visited june available clerk case file law appears job well statute enacted overall candidate expenditures increased overall independent expenditures rose whopping average candidate expenditures grew app pet cert pp app majority claims none subsidy cases involved funding respons ive expression see ante majority explain distinction created fit facts case matter long government discriminating basis viewpoint indeed difference majority highlights cut opposite direction facilitating responsive speech fosters uninhibited robust public debate new york times sullivan event majority wrong say never approved funding allow recipient counter someone else political speech ante exactly approved buckley valeo per curiam see supra majority notes public financing scheme buckley lacked trigger mechanism used arizona law see ante describe difference say matters show trigger constitutionally irrelevant made clear case davis federal election majority principally relies see infra majority argues speech quickly become less speech candidates switch public funding ante claim misunderstands voluntary public financing system works candidates significant financial resources likely decline public funds spend excess system expenditure caps candidates accept public financing believe enhance communication voters system continually pushes toward speech exactly happened arizona see supra majority offers majority error score extends candidates independent expenditure groups contrary majority suggestion see ante nearly arguments showing clean elections act impose substantial burden apply sets speakers apply regardless whether independent candidate expenditures trigger matching funds also true every one arguments demonstrating state compelling interest legislation see infra perhaps best response majority view act inhibits independent expenditure groups lies empirical fact already noted expenditures groups risen since arizona law enacted see supra note however record evidence effect spotty best majority finds anecdotal evidence supporting argument pages summary judgment record see ante majority also cites sections petitioners briefs cite pages record see ante consistent assessment district judge presided proceedings case stated petitioners presented vague scattered evidence law deterrent impact app pet cert appellate discerned even less evidence deterrent effect plaintiff pointed specific instance declined contribution failed make expenditure fear triggering matching funds see also understand majority essentially concede point never easy prove negative ante say matter need empirical evidence belabor issue detailing substantial testimony much pages worth matching funds provision put dent privately funded candidates spending course publicly funded candidates receive subsidy candidates agreed abide stringent spending caps privately funded candidates exceed amount buckley specifically approved exchange consistent first amendment see contrast davis involved scheme one candidate race received concrete fundraising advantages form asymmetrical contribution limits opponent spent certain amount money notably found conclusion obvious even though increase contribution limits works comparative advantage candidate candidate actually depends contributions system puts candidate choice stop spending allow higher contribution limits help opponent kick strategic choice parallels one arizona statute forces see supra majority also briefly relies miami herald publishing tornillo case still wider mark invalidated law compelling newspapers threat criminal sanction print candidate rejoinder critical commentary law explained overrode newspaper editorial judgment forced paper pay convey message disagreed see analogy might arizona forced privately funded candidates purchase opponents posters display posters campaign offices far case arizona statute require petitioners disseminate fund opposing speech way associate petitioners speech legislative findings also echo buckley found true public financing encourage citizen participation political process promote freedom speech enhancing ability candidates communicat voters majority briefly suggests state austere contribution limits lessen need public financing see ante provides support dubious claim arizona jurisdictions discovered contribution limits may eliminate risk corrupt dealing candidates donors especially given widespread practice bundling small contributions large packages see brief amicus curiae much reason buckley upheld limits contributions federal candidates public financing presidential campaigns see arizona like congress surely entitled conclude contribution limits partial measure functional public financing system also necessary eliminate political corruption stating otherwise substitutes judgment arizona voters contrary practice declining determination need prophylactic measures corruption evil feared federal election national right work reason majority quite wrong say state interest combating corruption support matching fund provision application candidate expenditure money independent expenditure ante point expenditures corrupt political process rather arizona includes well expenditures program ensure participating candidates receive funds necessary run competitive races attract candidates first instance direct service state interest note principle relates actions restricting speech see buckley rejecting notion government may restrict speech enhance relative voice others previously explained speech subsidies stand different constitutional footing see supra long government remains neutral among viewpoints may choose assist speech persons might otherwise heard assuming sake argument clean elections act imposes kind restraint expression requiring state show compelling interest