Last week, the United States Supreme Court held that matching funds (or rescue funds) are unconstitutional.

Chapel Hill’s taxpayer-financed campaign program has rescue funds and the town is planning on going forward with their unconstitutional rescue fund scheme, despite the Supreme Court opinion.

The town attorney, Ralph Karpinos, is trying to distinguish the town’s system from the Arizona system in the case (I just spoke to the attorney on the phone).

Here’s what the Supreme Court said:

Arizona’s program gives money to a candidate in direct response to the campaign speech of an opposing candidate or an independent group.  It does this when the opposing candidate has chosen not to accept public financing, and has engaged in political speech above a level set by the State.  This goes too far; Arizona’s matching funds provision substantially burdens the speech of privately financed candidates and independent expenditure groups without serving a compelling state interest.

Does Chapel Hill punish a nonparticipating candidate?

Yes.  Like the Arizona program, once a threshold amount of money has been spent, rescue funds are triggered to the opponent.

Does Chapel Hill punish independent groups?

Yes.  Like the Arizona program, independent expenditures can trigger rescue funds.

Chapel Hill is making the absurd argument that since the rescue funds are not provided on a dollar-for-dollar basis like Arizona, then the Supreme Court case doesn’t apply.  For example, in Arizona and with NC’s taxpayer financing for judges, if a candidate spends $10,000 beyond the threshold level, the opponent receives $10,000.  With Chapel Hill, the candidate (or independent groups) triggers a one-time lump sum to the opposing candidate.

The reason Arizona’s program was shot down and for that matter the Millionaire’s Amendment was shot down is because the government can’t punish free speech through triggering mechanisms.  Every legal problem that exists with the Arizona program exists with the Chapel Hill program.

One more quote from the case:

It is not the amount of funding that the State provides to publicly financed candidates that is constitutionally problematic in this case.  It is the manner in which that funding is provided—in direct response to the political speech of privately financed candidates and independent expenditure groups.

Chapel Hill’s interpretation doesn’t pass the laugh test and it hopefully will bring lawsuits and Section 1983 claims against Chapel Hill leaders.

Or, the legislature could (and should) just repeal the program.