The U.S. Supreme Court has generally upheld the public financing of campaigns, within the limits of the First Amendment, saying that “public financing as a means of eliminating the improper influence of large private contributions furthers a significant governmental interest” — helping to eliminate corruption.
Under the complaint’s rationale, virtually any public financing of campaigns that relies on tax revenue would be impermissible.
The lawsuit does not seek an immediate court order that would block the use of the vouchers this year; Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Ethan Blevins said that was a strategic move to give the court time to weigh the case, rather than rush a decision.
Adav Noti, a lawyer with the Washington, D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center, which supported Seattle’s law, said he didn’t know offhand of any other lawsuit that has challenged public campaign financing on grounds that it compels speech. He called the arguments weak, noting that people typically can’t sue over how the government chooses to spend their taxes and drawing an analogy to the current White House press secretary.
“Could somebody bring a lawsuit saying, ‘I don’t want to subsidize Sean Spicer’s salary because I don’t like his speech?’” Noti asked.