‘Millionaire’s Amendment’ earns challenge

The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will hear a challenge to the so-called “Millionaire’s Amendment.”

The provision allows candidates to accept much larger contributions from donors than standard limits allow when facing wealthy opponents who self-finance their own campaigns. A number of elected officials have taken advantage of the clause, such as presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in his 2004 Senate race, since it was first instituted under the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act.

{mosads}Jack Davis, a former Democratic congressional candidate who lost to Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.) in the 2006 midterm elections, brought the challenge. Davis poured a large amount of his own money into his campaign against Reynolds.

In court filings, Davis argues that since the clause expands contribution limits for candidates, it does not stymie the corrupting influence of donors while it protects incumbent politicians. If the ex-candidate wins his challenge, donation limits might come into question.

“One problem is the potential impact this case could have the constitutionality on the standard federal contribution limit,” said Paul Ryan, an attorney with the Campaign Legal Center. Ryan supports maintaining such limits.  

“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 corrupts,” said Brad Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics.

Ryan is also concerned that the case could have ramifications for public financing in state elections.

Several states, such as Arizona and Maine, offer public funds to candidates who agree to spending limits. If facing a self-funded opponent, candidates can typically call upon more public funds for their campaigns. If Davis were to win his case, state authorities might not be able to spend more public money in campaigns against self-financing candidates.

Yet Smith believes the Millionaire’s Amendment tramples on constitutional rights by hindering free speech during political campaigns.

“Congress is not allowed to tinker with people's speech rights because it thinks some people are speaking too much, or others not enough,” explains Smith. “That line of thought is entirely contrary to the First Amendment.”