Public Campaign-Finance Law Faces Uphill Battle at High Court

An Arizona law that offers public funding to state political candidates faces a tough crowd at the U.S. Supreme Court.

In arguments Monday, proponents will try to persuade the court to uphold the law, which gives candidates public funds if they face well-heeled opponents who opt out of the state election financing system.

Public-financing programs have not fared well at the Supreme Court, which has repeatedly struck down or narrowed laws that restrict how campaign funds are raised and spent.

Last year, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals limited Florida's public-finance law by siding with Rick Scott's challenge to the distribution of state matching funds. The appellate court ruled that candidates are not eligible for public campaign subsidies if a nonparticipating candidate breaks the state spending cap, as Scott did in his primary race against Bill McCollum.

The Arizona subsidies not only are triggered when an opposition candidate opts out of that state's program, but also when extra money is spent by independent political groups.

In a closely divided decision last year, the high court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, struck down federal limits on campaign expenditures by corporations in the Citizens United case.