|
The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a challenge to a campaign finance law that allows candidates to receive higher contributions when their wealthy opponents are funding their own races.
The so-called millionaire’s amendment was added to the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act as an attempt to help candidates stay competitive and prevent self-funded candidates from simply buying their way into Congress.
Jack Davis, a wealthy industrialist from New York, filed the suit against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) nearly two years ago when he was running against Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.) in a tight contest. Davis, a Democrat, also had challenged Reynolds in 2004 and is running for the seat Reynolds, who is retiring, is leaving behind.
During oral arguments before the high court Tuesday, Davis’s lawyer said the law impinges on free speech protections in the Constitution.
“Political expression is at the core of the First Amendment,” said the lawyer, Andrew Herman.
Justice Antonin Scalia appeared to agree, noting that he is “deeply suspicious” of the millionaire’s amendment, implying that he believes it gives incumbent lawmakers an unfair advantage.
“Trust our incumbent senators and representatives to level the playing field for us?” he asked incredulously.
Davis argues that incumbent members of Congress, especially those in senior positions or key committee slots, already have an inherent advantage over challengers because they can easily collect cash from special interests trying to influence them.
But Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to take the opposite tack at the onset of the day’s arguments.
“There is no restriction whatsoever on the wealthy candidate. He can spend as much of his money as he wants,” Roberts said.
Davis spent $2.2 million of his personal fortune in the 2006 loss. Reynolds, who was chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee at the time, vastly outspent him but did not rely on the millionaire’s amendment’s allowance for increased contributions to do so. In fact, the millionaire’s amendment didn’t apply to Reynolds because he raised enough money on his own that it was not triggered.
There is a provision in the amendment that provides a formula to “determine whether an opposing candidate has spent sufficient personal funds in comparison to the amounts raised by the campaigns to trigger increased contribution limits.”
|
