In exchange for accepting Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act conditions, participating candidates are granted public funds to conduct their campaigns. When certain conditions are met, publicly funded candidates are granted additional “equalizing” or matching funds. Matching funds are triggered when a privately financed candidate's expenditures, combined with the expenditures of independent groups made in support of the privately financed candidate or opposition to a publicly financed candidate, exceed the primary election allotment of state funds to the publicly financed candidate. During the general election, matching funds are triggered when the amount of money a privately financed candidate receives in contributions, combined with the expenditures of independent groups made in support of the privately financed candidate or in opposition to a publicly financed candidate, exceed the general election allotment of state funds to the publicly financed candidate. A privately financed candidate's expenditures of his personal funds are counted as contributions for purposes of calculating matching funds during a general election. Once triggered the public candidate gets matching funds almost dollar for dollar as are contributed to the private candidate. Once the public financing cap is exceeded, additional expenditures by independent groups can result in dollar-for-dollar matching funds as well. Spending by independent groups on behalf of a privately funded candidate, or in opposition to a publicly funded candidate, results in matching funds. Ps filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the matching fund's provision. The candidates and independent expenditure groups argued that the matching fund's provision unconstitutionally penalized their speech and burdened their ability to fully exercise their First Amendment rights. The District Court entered a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the matching fund's provision but stayed implementation of that injunction to allow the State to file an appeal. The Court of Appeals concluded that the matching fund's provision “imposes only a minimal burden on First Amendment rights” because it “does not actually prevent anyone from speaking in the first place or cap campaign expenditures.” The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.