.
.
In the first, Arizona had a law that said private candidates don't have to accept public funds for campaigns (just like federal laws), but if they spent over a certain amount - then the state would supply funds to the other candidate. The Supremes struck this down because.. well you shouldn't be able to run against rich people. Actually their "argument" was that giving other candidates money restricts the speech of the rich candidate. Which implies a there is limited amount of speech - but why quibble. I suppose we should be happy that they let us breath (there being a limited supply of air).
.
And, just in case you thought it was about saving the state money - the next case will disabuse you of that notion. In the this second case, Arizona allows you to direct $500 of your tax bill to a parochial school instead of the state. Up until this particular Supreme Court, the precedent has been that if the state gave the money to a parochial school for you OR if you directed the money from your state payment to a parochial school it was the same thing. This court decided that if you give money that should go to the state for taxes to a parochial school AND lowered your tax bill by that EXACT amount - it wasn't state supported("decided" in this case being a synonym for "pulled a reason out of their Catholic rear-ends"). I am not trashing Catholics here - just noting that 5 Judges on this court are Catholics and this reversal totally helps parochial schools. And the law was upheld 5 Catholics to 1 Episcopalian , 1 Protestant and 2 Jewish judges.