Corporate Accountability

McComish, the Supreme Court and the Fiesta Bowl Scandal

Last Monday, State Senator John McComish (R-AZ) was at the Supreme Court to hear arguments in McComish v. Bennett — a challenge he brought to Arizona’s Clean Elections Act, which provides public financing for candidates accepting limits on campaign fundraising activities. On Thursday, McComish had to admit that he is himself enmeshed in a still-unfolding campaign finance scandal involving officials from the Fiesta Bowl. McComish’s week tells you all you need to know what is wrong with both the campaign finance system in this country and the rulings of the Supreme Court in cases such as Citizens United v. FEC.

As shown in a 276-page report conducted by an outside firm, as well as in news reports, the scandal involves Fiesta Bowl officials allegedly providing freebie trips and gifts to Arizona state legislators, and more than $46,000 in campaign contributions to 23 candidates funneled through Fiesta Bowl employees. Last Thursday, Sen. McComish was forced to file an amended financial disclosure report, acknowledging that he had accepted from Fiesta Bowl officials a gift of more than $500 in value involving a trip to the Big 12 Championship in Dallas in 2009, and had not disclosed this fact as required by Arizona law.

The recipients of the campaign donations from the Fiesta Bowl’s employees are not public at this point, so currently it is impossible to know whether Sen. McComish’s campaign received donations funneled from any Fiesta Bowl employees. What we do know already is that the lead plaintiff in McComish v. Bennett is himself involved in a scandal that illustrates precisely why the public financing law he is challenging is necessary to avoid the corrupting influence of special interest money in politics.

The saddest part of the story is that it appeared on Monday, the the same day a five-Justice majority on the Supreme Court was prepared to strike down Arizona’s thoughtfully-constructed public financing program. Maybe these Justices will hear of the real life shenanigans of “McComish” in the case of McComish v. Bennett and reconsider. McComish is becoming Exhibit A in why the Supreme Court should reject his claim.

Cross-posted on Huffington Post

This article has been reprinted in the following publications

More from Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
September 21, 2026

CAC Release: Corporations Fare Even Better Than President Trump in the Supreme Court, Constitutional Accountability Center Finds

WASHINGTON, DC – The Supreme Court has just released its final decisions in cases argued...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

AbbVie v. Department of Health and Human Services

In AbbVie v. Department of Health and Human Services, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program is an unconstitutional taking...
Corporate Accountability
June 5, 2026

US Supreme Court backs federal regulators in wins for FCC and SEC

Reuters
CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod was quoted in Reuters discussing recent Supreme Court wins for...
Corporate Accountability
June 4, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Recognizes the Importance of History in Validating FCC Enforcement Process

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Federal Communications Commission v....
By: Smita Ghosh, Joshua Blecher-Cohen
Corporate Accountability
April 24, 2026

How the Supreme Court will have a major impact on the economy this spring

CNN
CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod spoke to CNN about big business at the Supreme Court. Read...
Corporate Accountability
September 21, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Considers Constitutionality of FCC Enforcement Process

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Federal Communications...
By: Joshua Blecher-Cohen, Smita Ghosh