Davis: Leveling rich candidates’ speech unjustified
WASHINGTON — It got lost in the glare of attention paid to the Supreme
Court’s decision declaring an individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear
arms. But an important First Amendment ruling also came down on that final day
of the Supreme Court’s session June 26, one that could threaten other parts of
the decades-long effort by Congress to reform the way money flows into and out
of political campaigns.
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 Court now has a solid majority of five justices — Antonin Scalia,
Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito Jr. and Chief Justice John
Roberts Jr. — who are hostile to campaign-finance reform on First Amendment
grounds, says University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone. The shift is
attributable to the arrival in 2006 of Alito — who authored the Davis
ruling — as the successor to Sandra Day O’Connor, who generally supported
Rick Hasen, election-law expert Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, says the
rationale of the Davis opinion puts in jeopardy spending limits on
corporations and unions and may even threaten public financing of campaigns.
The so-called “millionaire’s amendment” ruled on in Davis requires
self-financing candidates to declare their intention to spend more than $350,000
of their own funds, and then to report when they cross that line. Opponents of
those candidates are then allowed to raise more money from individuals ($6,900
as opposed to the usual maximum of $2,300), among other benefits.
Jack Davis, a self-financing congressional candidate in upstate New York,
challenged the provision, claiming that it in effect forced him to aid his
opponent and to diminish the force of his own free speech.
Justice Alito, writing for the majority, said this “asymmetrical” treatment
of opposing candidates “impermissibly burdens [Davis’] First Amendment right to
spend his own money for campaign speech.” Alito said the law forced a
self-financing candidate to make the unappealing choice between limiting his or
her own spending and triggering a system that helps his or her opponent raise
significantly more money.
That kind of government-compelled choice violates the First Amendment unless
it serves a “compelling state interest,” Alito said. Eliminating corruption or
the appearance of corruption would be a compelling interest, but Alito said the
millionaire amendment does exactly the opposite, because using one’s own funds
has been viewed as a way of reducing the threat of corruption.
Alito rejected the government’s main justification for the provision, namely
that it would “level electoral opportunities for candidates of different
political wealth.” That is not a compelling government interest, Alito said, and
it gives to Congress the power that belongs to the people in deciding the merits
of different candidates.
“Some are wealthy; others have wealthy supporters who are willing to make
large contributions. Some are celebrities; others have the benefit of a
well-known family name,” Alito wrote. “Leveling electoral opportunities means
making and implementing judgments about which strengths should be permitted to
contribute to the outcome of an election,” Justice Alito continued. “It is a
dangerous business for Congress to use the election laws to influence the
The majority also struck down the disclosure requirements imposed on wealthy
candidates under a standard of heightened scrutiny that could call into question
other disclosure requirements in campaign laws.
Dissenters, led by Justice John Paul Stevens, said the provision was a
reasonable and constitutional effort to reduce the influence of wealth in
political campaigns and counter “the perception that seats in the United States
Congress are available for purchase by the wealthiest bidder.”
Stevens added, “The Millionaire’s Amendment quiets no speech at all.” The
provision may help the opponent get his message heard, but that “in no way mutes
the voice of the millionaire.”
Also in dissent were Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen
Hasen suggested that if the Court disapproves limits on the spending of
millionaire candidates, it may also reverse its endorsement of limits on
corporate and union spending. “The corporate and union spending limits are
clearly on borrowed time,” said Hasen on his Election Law blog.
James Bopp Jr. of the James Madison Center for Free Speech, a longtime
opponent of campaign-finance laws, said the Davis ruling “has broad implications
for other cases.” Bopp added, “Candidates have a First Amendment right to fund
their own speech without being burdened by government provision of benefits to
their opponents. This has broad implication for public-funding schemes.”