TALLEY v. CALIFORNIA, 362 U.S. 60 (1960)
Ten dollar fine for failure to disclose name of author, and/or distributor, of handbill?

MARTIN v. STRUTHERS, 319 U.S. 141 (1943)
Is a prohibition on mere door knocking a “naked restriction of the dissemination of ideas?”

SHELTON v. TUCKER, 364 U.S. 479 (1960)
Can Arkansas make teachers reveal all political contributions in the past five years, thus identifying NAACP supporters for exclusion from the profession?

LOVELL v. CITY OF GRIFFIN, GA., 303 U.S. 444 (1938)
Failure to get a license before distribution of pamphlets.

HAGUE v. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION, 307 U.S. 496 (1939)
Pamphlets cause litter?

On, and on, and on, . . . REJECTED!

The only thing unique to the public money campaign is the extent to which the person getting public dollars disadvantages the non-rich person that is disadvantaged only because they have not accepted the restrictions of free speech that are compelled as a condition to the public money. That is, if all candidates, say for a fifty year time frame (at the extreme) routinely use public money what are we then to make of some radical person arguing that in ancient times (beyond the living memory of all politicians) such restrictions as the city dictates (whatever they might then look like) were not lawful.

This public money thing is wack, not so much because it involves public money, but because of the extraction of restrictions on speech that would otherwise be patently illegal restraints on free speech. The purpose is thus only to restrict speech.

Buy air time or space in the paper or, heck, publicly fund a voters pamphlet for gosh sakes and be neutral to all comers. Lets get rid of the notion that person X is considered clean and person Y is dirty. I could just as well claim that clean money Harry is Dirty Harry, by definition.

Here is all I need to do to get my facts for an as applied test case . . go get my 5 dollar donations from the requisite number for the position, which ever position I choose, then go demand the money from the city in like manner and upon like terms to any other participant but with one exception . . . I refuse to give up the many and varied rights as provided for free speech on core political matters. It is a naked restriction on speech, after all, folks. Any half-wit civil liberties attorney could topple the plan, the only thing standing in the way is whether someone with a sufficient beef with the advocates of dirty money will go bring the action.

Here is a nugget for the the readers who prefer to read the minds of judges rather than read the minds of politicians: While the First Amendment does not mandate the availability of Initiatives and Referendums, once they are made available, the full set of rules pertaining to the First Amendment apply to those forms of elections. (cite omitted) Likewise: While the First Amendment does not mandate the availability of publicly funded campaigns, once they are made available, the full set of rules pertaining to the First Amendment apply to those forms of elections.

For the astute reader, my objection to the clean money proposal applies equally to the allowance of tax breaks for any political campaign, for they have the sole purpose of extracting a waiver of free speech, or at least there exists a possible set of facts that could isolate that issue.

BlueOregon posts a link to the dirty money campaign to institutionalize an attack on free speech through the payment of public dollars to extract waivers of free speech. One comment points to the City of Portland's lastest draft proposal.