JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
PAPER CHASE NEWSBURSTDigest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.


Monday, August 06, 2012

Nebraska Supreme Court strikes down campaign finance law
Rebecca DiLeonardo at 2:19 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The Supreme Court of Nebraska [official website] on Friday struck down [opinion, PDF] a state campaign finance law that contributes state money to certain political candidates in order to lessen financial disparity among candidates. Under the law, candidates for certain public offices could voluntarily accept additional oversight in exchange for public financing [Neb Rev Stat § 1604], the levels of which may vary depending on the expenditures of privately-financed opponents. The court found that the law violated the free speech rights of political opponents who opt to spend over the limit and therefore do not receive funding. The Nebraska court noted in its decision that Attorney General Jon Bruning [official website] had issued an advisory opinion [text, PDF; JURIST report] last August drawing marked parallels between the state's campaign finance laws and portions of similar Arizona regulations that had been recently overturned [JURIST report] by the US Supreme Court [official website]. The court agreed with Bruning, finding that the state had not offered any additional compelling interest to distinguish its law from the Arizona law that was struck down by the Supreme Court.

In June 2011 the Supreme Court ruled [opinion, PDF] in Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett [Cornell LII backgrounder] that an Arizona campaign finance regulation that provided publicly financed candidates with additional government subsidies, triggered by independent expenditure groups' speech against such candidates or by the candidates' privately financed opponents, violates the First Amendment [text]. The court held 5-4 that such a system substantially burdens political speech and is not sufficiently justified by a compelling state interest to satisfy the First Amendment. Counsel for the respondent argued that "public funding of elections results in more speech and more electoral competition" and furthers a governmental interest of staving off "real and apparent corruption in politics."




Link |  | print | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | Facebook page

For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...


LATEST LEGAL NEWS

 Bosnia court orders release of president
1:32 PM ET, May 25

 Puerto Rico lawmakers approve gender, sexual orientation discrimination law
12:26 PM ET, May 25

 UN rights experts urge stronger legislation against caste-based discrimination
11:56 AM ET, May 25

 click for more...

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!

LATEST FORUM

The War on Terror and the Need for Muslim Support
DOMESTIC
Faisal Kutty
Valparaiso University Law School

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org