Opinion ID: 150474
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The CEP May Condition Public Funds on a Showing of Popular Support in the Previous Election

Text: As an initial matter, Buckley held that a public financing system may condition a grant of public money on a showing that the candidate already enjoys a certain threshold level of popular support. The reason is twofold: First, the government has an interest in not funding hopeless candidacies with large sums of public money, and that interest necessarily justifies the withholding of public assistance from candidates without significant public support. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 96, 96 S.Ct. 612 (citation omitted). Thus the Constitution does not require the Government to finance the efforts of every nascent political group, for [s]ometimes the grossest discrimination can lie in treating things that are different as though they were exactly alike. Id. at 97-98, 96 S.Ct. 612 (quotation marks omitted); see also id. at 97, 96 S.Ct. 612 ([T]he Constitution does not require Congress to treat all declared candidates the same for public financing purposes ... [as] there are obvious differences in kind between the needs and potentials of a political party with historically established broad support, on the one hand, and a new or small political organization on the other. (citation and quotation marks omitted)). In other words, Buckley recognized that if the Constitution were to require the presidential-candidate financing system to fund every minor-party candidate, the Constitution would provide the means for fly-by-night candidates to raid the United States Treasury. Id. at 98, 96 S.Ct. 612 (quotation marks omitted). The second reason that a public financing system may condition public money on a showing of popular support is that limiting an election to a small number of strong candidates serves the important public interest against providing artificial incentives to splintered parties and unrestrained factionalism. Id. at 96, 96 S.Ct. 612 (quotation marks omitted). That is, to fund every minor-party candidate would risk a fractured and chaotic election, artificially foster[ing] the proliferation of splinter parties. Id. at 98, 96 S.Ct. 612 (quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the CEP may, consistent with the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause, distinguish between candidates who can, and who cannot, make a preliminary showing of public support, providing funds to those who can and withholding funds from those who cannot. In addition, popular vote totals in the last election are a proper measure of public support. Id. at 99, 96 S.Ct. 612 (citing Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 439-40, 91 S.Ct. 1970, 29 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971)). The CEP's use of vote totals from the previous election, therefore, is a permissible way to distinguish between candidates who do and do not enjoy the required threshold level of popularity.