Source: https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/constitutional-analysis-proposed-small-donor-public-financing-program-new-mexico-0
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 04:23:48+00:00

Document:
New Mexico's governor vetoed a small donor matching program for state elections, claiming it was unconstitutional. But those concerns are unwarranted, and the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear these programs are wholly consistent with the First Amendment.
As discussed below, Governor Martinez’s concerns about the constitutionality of the proposed legislation are unwarranted. Small-donor public financing is undoubtedly constitutional and conforms fully with the First Amendment. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has twice ruled that public financing is constitutional and explicitly upheld a small-donor matching funds program in 1976.
In 2013, the State Legislature passed Senate Bill 16, which replaced the Act’s trigger provision with a small-donor public financing program. On April 5, 2013, Governor Martinez vetoed this bill, questioning its constitutionality.
In Buckley v. Valeo, the cornerstone of modern campaign finance law, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of public financing, including a small-donor public financing program similar to the one proposed for New Mexico.
In Buckley, the Court considered a series of statutes establishing public financing of presidential election campaigns, including a small-donor matching program for primary elections. Finding that public financing “furthers, not abridges, pertinent First Amendment values,” the Court upheld this public financing system, explaining that the purpose of public financing is to “facilitate and enlarge public discussion and participation in the electoral process, goals vital to a self-governing people.”  With respect to the small-donor matching program, where candidates in presidential primaries receive a one-to-one match of small-donor contributions of up to $250, the Court noted that “[t]he thrust of the legislation is to reduce financial barriers and to enhance the importance of smaller contributions.” Since Buckley, lower courts have repeatedly found public financing programs to be constitutional.
In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutionality of public financing in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett: “[G]overnments may engage in public financing of election campaigns and . . . doing so can further significant governmental interests, such as the state interest in preventing corruption.” Although the applicable statute did not include a small-donor matching program, nothing in the Court’s reasoning draws the constitutionality of small-donor matching – already recognized by the Court in Buckley – into question.
This reasoning is inapplicable to small-donor public financing, where public funds match small contributions to a participating candidate, and the distribution of public funding bears no relation whatsoever to opposition spending. Unlike the trigger at issue in Bennett, small-donor public financing does not penalize or otherwise burden opposition speech – how much any other candidates or independent groups spend is unrelated to the amount a publicly financed candidate receives. Thus, as Bennett makes clear, because small-donor public financing does not implicate a speaker’s “autonomy to choose the content of his own message,” it raises no concerns under the First Amendment. Indeed, the Bennett decision struck down only the trigger provision in Arizona’s public financing law, leaving the rest of the law operable.
In short, public financing of elections – including small-donor matching – enhances public debate and First Amendment values, and the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that these programs are wholly consistent with the First Amendment. New Mexico’s Senate Bill 16 therefore raises no constitutional questions or concerns.
 State of New Mexico, Senate Executive Message No. 58 (Apr. 5, 2013).
 See Ariz. Free Enter. Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 131 S. Ct. 2806, 2827 (2011); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 92-93 (1976).
 See Buckley, 424 U.S. at 92-93.
 N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 1-19A-1 through 1-19A-17.
 Dolan v. Duran, 12-cv-110, slip op. at 17 (D.N.M. July 25, 2012).
 Buckley, 424 U.S. at 107 (footnote omitted).
 See, e.g., Ognibene v. Parkes, No. 08 Civ. 1335(LTS)(FM), 2013 WL 1348462 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2013) (striking down only a triggered supplemental funds provision and upholding all other challenged portions of the New York City small donor public financing program), Green Party of Conn. v. Garfield, 616 F.3d 213 (2d Cir. 2010) (upholding majority of Connecticut’s Clean Election Program); Rosenstiel v. Rodriguez, 101 F.3d 1544, 1552 (8th Cir. 1996) (upholding Minnesota’s public funding program); Vote Choice, Inc. v. DiStefano, 4 F.3d 26, 39 (1st Cir. 1993) (upholding Rhode Island’s public financing law).
 Bennett, 131 S. Ct. at 2827 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
 Id. at 2820 (quoting Hurley v. Irish–American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557, 573 (1995)).
 Likewise, the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United decision in 2010 did not involve or affect the constitutionality of the public financing of elections. See Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010). Citizens United dealt with the constitutionality of a ban of specific political activities by corporations and certain disclosure requirements political spenders are required to undertake. The case did not directly address or incidentally affect any public financing mechanisms.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.