New York City Campaign Finance Board Executive Director Amy Loprest made the following statement in response to the Supreme Court's decision to hear a challenge to Arizona's public campaign financing system:
“On Monday, the Supreme Court announces it would hear a case challenging Arizona’s public campaign financing system. At issue is a provision of Arizona’s law that awards additional public funds to participating candidates who face high-spending non-participants.
“While New York City’s system has a similar ‘bonus’ provision, there are fundamental differences between Arizona’s system and ours. In Arizona’s ‘Clean Money’ program, participating candidates receive all their funds through public financing. In New York City’s Campaign Finance Program, candidates’ private contributions are matched with public funds, increasing the impact of New Yorkers’ small contributions.
“Both programs seek to reduce the influence of large, access-seeking contributions. We strongly believe that these goals are best achieved when most candidate participate. If public financing programs cannot provide an adequate level of public funds to candidates whose opponents opt out, candidates will not take part.
“New York City’s experience with bonus matching funds is instructive, including the most recent mayoral election. Additional public funds for candidates facing a high-spending non-participant have helped increase— rather than restrict— the volume of political speech in City elections.
“It is out firm belief that providing an appropriate level of funds to participants against high-spending non-participants has benefited New Yorkers by helping maintain high levels of participation in the Program and ensuring that more candidates have the chance to be heard.”