While Portland voters ponder whether to keep or throw out "voter-owned elections" -- the city's quixotic taxpayer financing of politicians' City Council campaigns -- a new U.S. Supreme Court order throws the legality of at least some aspects of the Portland "clean money" system into question. Apparently the Court is unhappy with provisions of Arizona law that allow publicly financed candidates extra public money when their opponents spend more than the "clean" candidates. The Arizona rules may impinge upon the speech rights of the opponents, in violation of the First Amendment, as the Court has for decades adhered to the view that spending money to disseminate a message is a form of protected speech.

When last I looked, the Portland system had a matching mechanism in it similar to the Arizona law -- I believe Amanda Fritz and Erik "Opie" Sten both benefited from it in past years.

So far, the High Court has forbidden Arizona from shelling out more "clean money" to match opponent spending in the governor's race down there -- pending a likely full hearing on the merits of the constitutional claim sometime in the fall. Meanwhile, Portland voters will pass on the city's program on November 2. It seems highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will issue a final opinion in the Arizona case before then.