The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled Friday that Nebraska’s Campaign Finance Limitation Act is unconstitutional.
The 1992 act was meant to level the financial playing field in political campaigns.
Under the law, known as the CFLA, candidates for state offices had varying spending limits for primary and general elections. Candidates who agree to abide by the voluntary limits can qualify for public funds if their opponents exceed the cap.
In overturning the law, Nebraska's high court cited a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court that struck down part of an Arizona law that gives money to publicly funded candidates facing privately funded opponents and independent groups.
The Arizona law was passed in the wake of a public corruption scandal and was intended to reward candidates who forgo raising campaign cash, even in the face of opponents' heavy spending fueled by private money.
But the court said the Arizona law violated the First Amendment.
"Laws like Arizona's matching funds provision that inhibit robust and wide-open political debate without sufficient justification cannot stand," Chief Justice John Roberts said in the court's majority opinion.
After that ruling, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning's office issued an opinion that the campaign finance law in Nebraska likely was unconstitutional, and the state Supreme Court was asked to weigh in.
In Friday's ruling, Chief Justice Mike Heavican said the act indeed stifles free speech.
"The Nebraska statutory scheme is similar to that of Arizona, which was found unconstitutional," he wrote. "Under the CFLA’s public financing provisions, public funds are disbursed to abiding candidates in response to the political speech of privately financed candidates. Such restrictions on campaign spending create substantial burdens on the rights of free speech under the First Amendment."
State Sen. Scott Lautenbaugh of Omaha, who for years tried to abolish the law, hailed the ruling Friday.
"I'm very gratified by the court's opinion," he said. "I always believed it was unconstitutional and had the opposite impact of what we had hoped as far as keeping elections aboveboard and fair. I just say good riddance to a bad law."
But Jack Gould of the political watchdog group Common Cause said the ruling represented "a sad day for Nebraska."
"Unfortunately, the barn door is open, and the spending in Nebraska will follow the national pattern," he said, referring to two other U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have opened the door for unfettered and largely anonymous spending in campaigns for Congress and the presidency.
Those included the 2009 "Citizens United" decision, which removed most limits on election spending by corporations and organized labor, and a 2008 decision that voided the federal "millionaire's amendment" to increase contribution limits for congressional candidates facing wealthy opponents.
"Expensive attack ads and flimsy issue pitches will be the measure of political campaigns," Gould said. "We are looking at a rich man's game in which no one really knows the candidates and the issues are reduced to tired clichés."
Under the CFLA, once a so-called non-abiding candidate spent 40 percent of his or her estimate, the abiding opponent could request matching state funds.
Limits under the Nebraska law varied by office.
For state Board of Education races and the Public Service Commission, the limit was $72,000; for legislative races, it was $92,000; University of Nebraska Board of Regents races, $103,000; and state treasurer, secretary of state, auditor and attorney general, $215,000.
Lautenbaugh introduced a bill last year to abolish the Nebraska law but eventually agreed to a compromise to change it. Lautenbaugh's bill was changed after Sen. Charlie Janssen of Fremont offered a compromise that would allow political candidates to accept contributions of up to 75 percent of the spending cap for their races from non-individuals. It had been 50 percent.
Lautenbaugh wanted to scrap the system in favor of having more strict reporting requirements to show where candidates get their money, such as requiring campaigns to report the sources of all contributions of more than $50, instead of the $250 in state law.
Lincoln Sen. Bill Avery, who often defended the campaign finance law in the Legislature, said he will study the ruling "to see if there is legislative way to preserve some of the goals that were set out in 1992 in the CFLA."
Please Wait…