Besides the decision overuling the District of Columbia handgun ban, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important opinion today in the case of Federal Election Commission v. Davis, holding that yet another part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law violates the First Amendment.
The Court found that the so-called "Millionaire’s amendment," which establishes elevated contribution limits for non-self-funding candidates for Congress running against well-heeled self-funded candidates, is unconstitutional because it imposes different contribution limits for candidates running against each other. The opinion reaffirmed the opinion in the famous Buckley v. Valeo case which held that a candidate’s expenditure of personal funds for him or herself is a right based on First Amendment principles to fully "advocate his own election." The Court found there was not a sufficient elimination of corruption or the perception of corruption to justify unequal contribution limits just because one of the candidates has heavily funded themselves.
The court made the right decision. Millionaires like Congressman John Campbell, who pour hundreds of thousands into their own races, surely have an edge over other candidates simply because they are wealthy, but that does not mean that paying a big share of their own election bills is corrupt. To the contrary, it very likely makes them less able to be influenced. And millionaires don’t always beat the less funded activist candidate. Just ask Doug Ose!
Justice Alito wrote the opinion and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas.
McCain-Feingold has now been enviscerated in a series of decisions of the Supreme Court. The Wisconsin Right to Life decision last year especially carved out a roll for speech by advocacy organization’s issue advocacy ads paid for with corporate and unlimited funds, outside the regulation of the FEC. Today liberal election law observers who favor more regulation of speech are abuzz about the implications of the current decision on potential future election law cases, including whether or not the current ban on union and corporate contributions in Federal elections might be overturned, given an apparent firm, but narrow, 5 vote majority in these cases. (Presumably union members and corporation shareholders have speech rights in Federal elections, too, right?) As the saying goes, stay tuned!