Supreme Court Changes AZ Election Rules

Posted on Posted in Other

The Supreme Court of the United States, in the ruling Citizen’s United v. Federal Election Commission, has sided with corporations against the vote of average Americans and subverted our most basic rights in a democratic system. As has been detailed in previous posts on our blog, this victory for special interests illustrates a radical erosion of our republican form of government and has created much controversy around the current judges who preside on our most powerful of court benches.

This extreme direction of the Supreme Court has been recently illustrated in Arizona, where the Court has struck down the ability of the State to fund candidate which face privately backed rivals; changing the election rules in the midst of the Arizona primary season.

The Court’s ruling has essentially eliminated the State’s ability to disburse “matching funds” for struggling candidates, who are now hopelessly unable to raise money and compete against well funded private candidates on an unequal playing field.

The Arizona law was designed to prevent the excessive presence of corporately approved candidates and offer a fairer voice to interests unable to gain access to large funds to support candidates more representative of them. Under this system, a struggling candidate can gain matching funds up to two times their base count when they are significantly out funded by private rivals or targeted by the spending of independent groups.

The Supreme Court’s ruling has changed the rules in the midst of an election and may result in a sudden unfair advantage for certain candidates.

Although the Court ruling affects only Arizona, both Connecticut and Maine have similar systems which may be affected in the future.