Here's an
update to my earlier
post today about McComish:
UPDATE: A few readers have pointed out to me
that the exchange between the Chief and Brad Phillips concerned a
hypothetical in which a state provides matching funds based on
non-participant and independent expenditure group's spending but
where the match would be 2 to 1 rather than 1 to 1. I understood
that to be the point of the Chief's hypothetical too, but I did not
make that clear in my post above. More importantly, Brad's point
about coercion and voluntariness would apply to a system that gave
very generous public financing grants as well, including one that
gave very generous multiple matches to small donations (not
triggered at all by opposition spending). As Buckley and the First
Circuit Daggett
case make clear, a public financing system which is very
generous--when viewed in the context of the entire plan, including
contribution limits for non-participating candidates---may be
unconstitutional if a candidate does not feel she can rationally
choose to opt out.
--
Rick Hasen
Visiting Professor
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax rhasen@law.uci.edu