First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
News Story
Justices dissect 'millionaire's amendment'

By The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservative justices appeared divided today over a campaign-finance law allowing candidates to receive larger contributions when their wealthy opponents spend heavily from their personal fortunes.

The so-called “millionaire’s amendment” kicks in to help candidates stay financially competitive against wealthy opponents.

“There is no restriction whatsoever on the wealthy candidate. He can spend as much of his money as he wants,” Chief Justice John Roberts said at the outset of arguments pitting Jack Davis of New York against the Federal Election Commission.

But Justice Antonin Scalia said he is “deeply suspicious” of the provision. “Trust our incumbent senators and representatives to level the playing field for us,” Scalia said.

The measure is part of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which the Court upheld in large part in 2003 in McConnell v. FEC. Last year, however, the Court’s conservative majority struck down a provision limiting corporate- and union-financed television ads in a 5-4 decision (FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life) that suggested the Court would be hostile to federal limitations on money in politics.

Davis, a Democrat, lost in 2004 and 2006 to Republican Rep. Tom Reynolds.

Davis spent $2.2 million of his own money in the 2006 loss, but was vastly outspent anyway by Reynolds, who did not receive increased contributions after Davis reported exceeding the threshold, $350,000 in House races.

Andrew Herman, Davis’ lawyer, told the Court today that the law, in effect, says “we’re going to make it easier for your opponent to beat you.” Davis claims the provision unfairly protects incumbents who can easily tap campaign contributors.

Davis has already said he will spend $3 million of his own money this year to try and win the retiring Reynolds’ seat.

The FEC has said that only six incumbents were eligible to receive larger contributions because of their opponents’ use of their own money in the first four years the measure was in effect. Another 104 candidates faced opponents who spent enough from their personal wealth to trigger the provision.

The law also allows a political party to spend unlimited amounts of money to help a candidate facing a wealthy opponent, while the party of the wealthy candidate must abide by limits. Justice Anthony Kennedy said he was troubled by this aspect of the law because it appears to prefer “one kind of speech over another, and we simply do not do that.”

Solicitor General Paul Clement, representing the FEC, said there may have been just one campaign in which a political party took advantage of the limits being removed.

A three-judge court in Washington upheld the provision, saying Davis failed to show that his speech had been constrained by the millionaire’s amendment. It “does not limit in any way the use of a candidate’s personal wealth in his run for office,” the court said.

The case is Davis v. FEC, 07-320.

Court strikes down 'millionaire's amendment'
Justices split 5-4; majority finds campaign-finance law violates the First Amendment. 06.26.08

Supreme Court to review 'millionaire's amendment'
Campaign-finance law is meant to level playing field in campaigns by letting candidates facing wealthy opponents accept larger donations. 01.11.08


'Millionaire' case: new look at campaign finance

By Tony Mauro Appellant argues that allowing opponents of self-financed candidates to receive larger campaign contributions encourages corruption. 01.14.08

Court grills both sides in 'millionaire' case
By Tony Mauro Justices' tough questions remind spectators that this is different high court from one that upheld campaign-finance law in 2003. 04.23.08

2007-08 Supreme Court case tracker

Campaign finance horizon

News summary page
View the latest news stories throughout the First Amendment Center Online.

print this   Print

Last system update: Thursday, August 21, 2008 | 13:25:23
About this site
About the First Amendment
About the First Amendment Center
First Amendment programs
State of the First Amendment

First Reports
Supreme Court
First Amendment publications
First Amendment Center history
Freedom Sings™
First Amendment

Congressional Research Service reports
Guest editorials
FOI material
The First Amendment

Lesson plans
Contact us
Privacy statement
Related links