JLF’s Mitch Kokai makes an appearance in this News 14 report on the implications of the recent Supreme Court ruling on North Carolina campaign finance law:
“What happens is a candidate who decides to run without the tax payer financing can only spend up to a certain threshold level. Beyond that level the tax payer financing system kicks in matching funds for the opponent to try to level out the amount of spending,” said Mitch Kokai, of the John Locke Foundation.
The court didn’t rule that public campaign financing, also know as tax payer financing, as unconstitutional, but the court said the matching funds provision is. Opponents of the system want to get rid of it all together so candidates can raise as much as they want.
“North Carolina’s matching funds provision is about exactly the same as the Arizona provision, so if it’s unconstitutional for Arizona’s program it is for North Carolina’s program too,” Kokai said.
Democracy North Carolina’s Bob Hall counters that the Supreme Court ruling “may give fuel to those who really hate public financing.” But if it’s unconstitutional, it’s unconstitutional, correct? Or does that even matter?
