SHORT SUMMARY:

PRIOR COURT DECISIONS SUPPORTING OUR CHALLENGE TO THE FEC FOR FAIR FUNDING FOR INDEPENDENTS & ALTERNATIVE CANDIDATES

For a full discussion of these powerful precedents, see the brief below.

Our attorneys Oliver Hall and Harry Kresky have identified several court precedents supporting our contention that a key statue governing the FEC’s matching fund program, (26 U.S.C. § 9032(6)), inherently discriminates against alternative parties, and is unconstitutional. In one of these precedents, the court establishes that a public financing system violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection if it “unfairly or unnecessarily burden[s] the political opportunity of any party or candidate.”[i]

In another precedent, the court argues, based on First Amendment (freedom of speech) principles, that “campaign funds are often essential if ‘advocacy’ [of beliefs and ideas] is to be truly or optimally ‘effective’ ” especially as applied to “a candidate [who] either lacks national prominence or belongs to a minor party outside the mainstream of American politics.” It is therefore “particularly important to ensure that the Commission is applying the eligibility criteria for primary matching funds in an even-handed manner.”[ii]  

Other precedents more generally underscore the importance of including political alternatives. One of these makes explicit that we have a “national commitment to open and robust discussion of all political viewpoints” [iii] And finally, both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals have warned against giving “an unfair advantage to established parties, thus reducing, to the nation’s detriment … the potential fluidity of American political life.” [iv]

With your help we are putting these precedents to work in court, to advocate for equitable funding for independent and alternative party candidates!