According to the Plaintiffs, the Clean Elections system produced a chilling effect on speech because it "seeks to equalize funding.

"[4] But advocates of the Clean Elections law argued that the system deters corruption because candidates do not have to cater to special interest groups.

In January 2010 the district court decided the matching funds provision violated the First Amendment and issued an injunction.

[5] District Court Judge Roslyn Silver agreed with the plaintiffs that the matching funds provision could not stand under Davis, although she referred to the result as "illogical" and referred to the holding in Davis as "an ipse dixit unsupported by the slightest veneer of reasoning to hide the obvious judicial fiat by which it is reached.

The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the matching funds provision of Arizona's law was analytically distinct from the millionaire's amendment.

[7][5] Two years earlier the Supreme Court had decided, in Davis v. Federal Election Commission (2008), to strike down a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) known as the Millionaire's Amendment that allowed candidates to raise campaign contributions at three times the normal contribution limit and receive unlimited coordinated party expenditures if their opponent spent over $350,000 of their own personal money.

[11][12][13] The Court found the Clean Elections Act imposed a heavier burden on candidate speech than the Millionaire's Amendment because candidates benefiting from the Clean Elections Act received public funds automatically when their opponent spent money, even for uncoordinated expenditures made by independent groups.

January 27, 2010: Plaintiffs ask 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to remove the stay and strike down the Matching Funds provision of Clean Elections immediately.

February 3, 2010: Plaintiffs file emergency appeal to repeal the stay on Judge Silver's order with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.