The Insider: Good Signs for First Amendment in Judge William Pryor’s Rulings on Tax-Financing, Political Sign Cases (In the News)

January 23, 2017   •  By David Keating
Default Article

The Insider: Good Signs for First Amendment in Judge William Pryor’s Rulings on Tax-Financing, Political Sign Cases

By David Keating

Scott v. Roberts presented Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott’s challenge to a tax-financed campaign scheme the state enacted in 1986 and amended in 1991. The program generally operated as a matching funds program… However, once an opponent to a tax-financed candidate spent over $2/registered voter, the subsidized candidate received a dollar-for-dollar match of his opponent’s spending. The subsidized candidate no longer needed to raise any private funds to receive the subsidy. The law also allowed subsidized candidates to exceed expenditure limits. Judge Pryor held the scheme was likely unconstitutional, and the opinion overturned a district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction…

In Beaulieu v. City of Alabaster, Judge Pryor joined an opinion that held a city’s sign-usage ordinance unconstitutional. The ordinance placed different burdens on commercial and political signs…

Applying strict scrutiny, the panel affirmed the district court ruling, which overturned the ordinance. The panel determined that the city’s interests in aesthetics and safety did not overcome the core political speech at issue.

David Keating

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap