The Supreme Court disagrees with arbitrary limits on political donations

The Supreme Court disagrees with arbitrary limits on political donations. On June 27, the Supreme Court of the United States imposed new restrictions on state governments as these states try to limit the influence of political donations...

The Supreme Court disagreed with the arbitrary restrictions on political donations. On June 27, the Supreme Court of the United States imposed new restrictions on state governments as they tried to limit the influence of political donations. The Supreme Court blocked a law that tied the amount of public funding a candidate can receive to how much privately funded opponents spend. The Supreme Court passed this decision by a vote of 5 to 4. It's the latest in a series of decisions by the high court's conservative majority to upend campaign finance laws. But the Supreme Court did not attack the legality of using public funds for campaign funds, leaving a glimmer of hope for those advocating limits on political campaign spending. Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion addressed a trigger in an Arizona law that provides different levels of funding to publicly funded candidates based on spending by privately funded opponents and independent groups. The law, passed in the wake of a public corruption scandal, was intended to reward candidates who gave up raising their own campaign funds, even as they faced lavish campaign spending by privately funded opponents. Those challenging the Arizona law say it would allow them to rein in their spending to prevent their political opponents from receiving a fresh infusion of state funds. The Supreme Court said this triggering mechanism violated the First Amendment of the Constitution. Currently, at least four other states in the United States (Maine, New Mexico, North Carolina and Wisconsin) have similar "trigger" provisions that will affect certain political campaigns.