Matching election funds stands, for now

Publicly financed candidates for state and legislative offices will be allowed to get matching funds once foes spend more — at least for the time being.

U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver on Tuesday rejected a request by attorneys for some privately funded candidates to immediately block matching funds for the remainder of this election.

Silver did not explain her reasoning, promising a full written opinion by the end of the week.

The decision is a victory for supporters of the decade-old system of public financing. They said the matching funds provision is a necessary part of the scheme.

But Tuesday’s decision is not the last word.

Silver has already issued a preliminary ruling that providing matching funds is unconstitutional.

The only question before her at this point was whether to allow the matches to continue while both sides prepare full-blown arguments about the legality of the law for a case that is not likely to go to trial until next year.

Whoever loses is also likely to appeal, possibly all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

More immediately, Nick Dranias, an attorney for the Goldwater Institute, which is representing some of the privately funded candidates, said he may ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to intercede between now and the Nov. 4 general election.

Arizona voters approved the Clean Elections Act a decade ago. It allows candidates who do not take private funds to get a set amount of dollars for their campaigns.

This year legislative candidates are entitled to up to $19,382 for their general election campaigns, with the proceeds coming largely from a surcharge on civil, criminal and traffic fines. But the law also says that if a privately funded foe spends more, the state will provide a dollar-for-dollar match, up to three times the original allocation.

That would entitle candidates up to $58,146.

The lawsuit, brought by candidates running with private dollars, argued that is unfair because each dollar they spend gives more to help elect their opponents.

Potentially more significant, they pointed out that their foes can get money even when independent groups spend money attacking the publicly financed candidates, even if those commercials end up hurting the privately funded ones.

Silver, in a ruling in August, concluded that it appears the matching funds provision is illegal.

But she refused at that time — just days before the primary — to put an immediate halt to the match, saying it could lead to electoral chaos. Instead Silver said she would consider arguments about whether the system should remain in place for the general election. That decision came Tuesday.

While Silver did not explain her latest ruling, she had expressed concern during a hearing last week about whether it would be fair to change the rules in the middle of an election.