Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a legal challenge to the Millionaires' Amendment, a section of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill that loosens fundraising limits for opponents of wealthy candidates who cut big checks to their own campaigns.
Jack Davis, a Democratic businessman who ran unsuccessfully for Congress in upstate New York last cycle, is challenging the provision, suggesting that the law violates his First Amendment and equal protection rights and deters wealthy people from running for office.
Many Republicans at both the state and national level would likely be thrilled to see the law overturned. Struggling to keep up in fundraising, they've turned to millionaire self-funders with increasing frequency; here in Illinois, Steve Sauerberg, Jim Oberweis, Steve Greenberg, and Marty Ozinga are all great examples. In the 14th Congressional District, Oberweis did his best to sidestep the campaign finance law during his special election race against Bill Foster, even though his campaign claimed unintentional errors accounted for the misunderstanding.
But if I was working at the NRCC, I wouldn't hold my breath. It will be pretty shocking if Davis wins his appeal, considering that his claims don't hold up under serious scrutiny. Look no further than this editorial in The New York Times today:
These claims are baseless. As the three-judge court that initially heard the case noted, the millionaires’ amendment does not deprive anyone of free-speech rights or the ability to spend money to run for office. Mr. Davis was able to spend as much of his own fortune as he wanted. The amendment simply adds to the total amount of speech by making it easier for less-wealthy candidates to be heard.
There is also no sign that the amendment is discouraging the wealthy from running or spending. The very rich are represented in Congress in large numbers. Contrary to Mr. Davis’s claims of “chilling,” the number of candidates who spent more than $1 million of their own money actually increased after the amendment took effect. It is now common for party recruiters to seek out “self-financing” — or wealthy — candidates.
The appeal is so one-sided that even the Bush Administration agrees that the provision is a "modest and constitutionally appropriate attempt to counteract the perception that a candidate who is wealthy enough can buy a seat in Congress." And that's saying something.
Post new comment