The Supreme Court invalidated a 1998 Arizona law that gave a financial boost to the candidates who were solely publicly funded, but only if their privately funded opponents spent more money. The decision was based on a 5-4 vote. The new law mandates that the candidates who do not accept campaign contributions are eligible to participate in a public financing system, which would provide a lump-sum grant for the campaign.
One condition to the law is the amount of the grant. In the case that the opponent, who was not publicly funded outspent the amount of the grant given by the state, the candidate would then receive more money from the state to bring the candidates into rough spending parity. The law was created due to several privately funded candidates who challenged the contents of the law and claimed they reined in their spending to avoid triggering the matching funds for their publicly funded opponents. They also claim that the law was an actual restraint to their campaigns, which violated their right to freedom of speech.