WASHINGTON — The 2008 election season is dominated by presidential politics and a national focus on the economy and war, but a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June 2008 may have set the stage for challenges to how government regulates the money that fuels future federal campaigns.
On June 26, in Davis
v. Federal Election Commission, the Court by a 5-4 vote struck down a little-known provision of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law aimed at leveling the playing field for opponents of wealthy candidates who can finance their own campaigns.
That goal of leveling or equalizing speech is not sufficient to justify the law, and would have “ominous implications” if accepted, the Court ruled, because government in effect would be manipulating candidate speech.
“The First Amendment secured an important victory today," said Bradley Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, former FEC chair and a longtime critic of McCain-Feingold.
The Supreme Court agreed on Jan. 11 to hear the case, which was a challenge to the so-called
“millionaire’s amendment” to the 2002 McCain-Feingold law, officially known as
Campaign Reform Act.
Under the provision, when one candidate in an election reports spending more
than $350,000 of his or her own funds for a campaign, the candidate’s opponent
is freed from the law’s usual $2,300 limit on individual contributions. Donors
to the candidate opposing a millionaire can contribute three times as much money
as other candidates can receive. The clause was aimed at blunting the advantage
enjoyed by rich candidates who can fund their own campaigns.
Jack Davis, a 2006 Democratic candidate for Congress in New York, financed
his own losing campaign, exceeding the $350,000 benchmark that triggered the
higher limits for his opponent, the incumbent Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y.
Even though there was no evidence that Reynolds took advantage of the
provision by accepting larger donations, Davis challenged it in court. He
protested the millionaire amendment’s “unique and disparate treatment” of his
“core political expression.” The law, he said, in effect penalized him for
exercising his First Amendment right to spend his money on his own campaign by
exposing him to opposition by a candidate who is “entitled to collect funds
under contribution limits that are significantly higher than normal.”
But a three-judge district court panel in Washington, D.C., rejected Davis’s
suit, finding that the law did not chill the speech of Davis or other
self-financed candidates. The law “places no restrictions on a candidate’s
ability to spend unlimited amounts of his personal wealth to communicate his
message to voters, nor does it reduce the amount of money he is able to raise
from contributors,” the panel found. Under BCRA, appeals involving its
constitutionality go directly from three-judge panels to the Supreme Court.
In the high court appeal, lawyers for Davis note that in Buckley
v. Valeo, the 1976 decision that set the standard for assessing
campaign-finance laws, the justices said that “leveling the playing field” was
not a sufficient justification for infringing on the free-speech right of
candidates. Lawyer Andrew Herman also asserts that under past precedents, a
candidate’s use of his or her own money in a campaign has been viewed as
Significantly, Davis’s brief then argued that the “millionaire amendment”
undermines the justification for the McCain-Feingold law’s most important
feature: limiting the corrupting influence of campaign contributions. By
allowing the opponents of self-financed candidates to receive larger campaign
contributions, the law in effect fixes the perceived problem of millionaire
candidates by corrupting their opponents.
“How can the answer to non-corrupting expenditures be found in higher limits
made available only to those candidates most susceptible to corruption?” asks
Other opponents of the campaign-finance law are also likely to exploit that
seeming contradiction. Bradley Smith said in a Jan. 11 press release, “There is no
way to credibly argue that receiving a contribution in excess of $2,300 is
corrupting when facing an opponent of ordinary financial means, but then, if
your opponent happens to be rich, that same contribution amount no longer
Smith, author of a 2002 book, Unfree Speech: the Folly of Campaign Finance
Reform, added: “This case exposes and undermines the ‘corruption rationale’
used to justify most campaign finance laws.” Smith’s group plans to file a brief
in the Davis case.
Solicitor General Paul Clement, in a brief for the Bush administration
opposing the petition and supporting the law, said Davis had no standing to sue
because he had suffered no injury as a result of the law. The government also
claims the law does not violate Davis’s First Amendment rights.
Clement’s brief also responded to the seeming irony in allowing the opponents
of self-supporting candidates to receive more potentially corrupting
contributions. “The modified contribution and coordinated-expenditure limits
contained in Section 319 do not reflect congressional abandonment of FECA's
anti-corruption purpose,” Clement wrote. “Rather, they reflect Congress's
determination to adjust the balance in a subset of elections to address an
additional legitimate interest that is distinctly raised in that subset.”
The administration’s brief also stated, “Congress has concluded that the
contribution limits — despite their fundamental importance in fighting actual
and apparent corruption — should be relaxed to mitigate the countervailing risk
that they will unfairly favor those who are willing, and able, to spend a small
fortune of their own money to win election.”