This week the Supreme Court issued an order that cuts off Arizona’s matching funds for its taxpayer financed campaigns. In other words, the Court ruled in favor of free speech. The order has The New York Times fuming. The paper also notes that the order, as well as previous rulings, have an impact right here in North Carolina. (emphasis is mine)

If the court pushes on with its chainsaw, cutting down programs that trigger matching funds, it would threaten systems in Connecticut and Maine, and judicial-race financing systems in Wisconsin, North Carolina and elsewhere. It might even shake New York City’s system, which provides higher matching funds when a well-financed opponent does not participate in the system. Candidates with no prospect of matching funds would be reluctant to join a system that limits their spending. Unless the court veers from its determined path, there will be no limit to the power of a big bankbook on politics.

JLF’s Daren Bakst says North Carolina should heed the order and place an immediate hold on the “matching-funds” provision of its taxpayer-financed election campaign system. He explains in this brief interview.