U. S. Supreme Court Finds The So-Called "Millionaires Amendment" For Politicians Unconstitutional.

The U. S. Supreme Court, in a very fractured but near unanimous opinion, ruled in DAVIS v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 07-320 (2008), that the so called "Millionaires' Amendment" to the federal election laws, which require a candidate for elective office who intends to spend more than $350,000.00 to inform his opponent and also suffer some monetary penalties, was unconstitutional on free speech and privacy of association and belief grounds.

Below are the facts of the case as articulated by the Court:

Federal-law limits on the amount of contributions a House of Representatives
candidate and his authorized committee may receive from an individual, and the amount his party may devote to coordinated campaign expenditures, 2 U. S. C. §§441a(a)(1)(A), (a)(3)(A), (c), and (d), normally apply equally to all competitors for a seat and their authorized committees. However, §319(a) of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), 2 U. S. C. §441a–1(a), part of the so-called “Millionaire’s Amendment,” fundamentally alters this scheme when, as a result of a candidate’s expenditure of personal funds, the “opposition personal funds amount” (OPFA) exceeds $350,000. The OPFA is a statistic comparing competing candidates’ personal expenditures and taking account of certain other fundraising. When a “self-financing” candidate’s personal expenditure causes the OPFA to pass $350,000, a new, asymmetrical regulatory scheme comes into play.The self-financing candidate remains subject to the normal limitations, but his opponent, the “non-self-financing” candidate, may receive individual contributions at treble the normal limit from individuals who have reached the normal limit on aggregate contributions, and may accept coordinated party expenditures without limit. See §§441a–1(a)(1)(A)–(C). Because calculating the OPFA requires certain information about the self-financing candidate’s campaign assets and personal expenditures, §319(b) requires him to file an initial “declaration of intent” revealing the amount of personal funds the candidate intends to spend in excess of $350,000, and to make additional disclosures to the other candidates, their national parties, and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as his personal expenditures exceed certain benchmarks. Appellant Davis, a candidate for a House seat in 2004 and 2006 who lost both times to the incumbent, notified the FEC for the 2006 election, in compliance with §319(b), that he intended to spend $1million in personal funds. After the FEC informed him it had reason to believe he had violated §319 by failing to report personal expenditures during the 2004 campaign, he filed this suit for a declaration that §319 is unconstitutional and an injunction preventing the FEC from enforcing the section during the 2006 election. The District Court concluded sua sponte that Davis had standing, but rejected his claims on the merits and granted the FEC summary judgment.

Editor's comment: While I am one who is EXTREMELY disgusted at the CHOKE HOLD special interest money has on our political system (and politicians), and the CORRUPTION it breeds, I TOTALLY agree with the Court that a person spending his/her "unlimited" personal funds for his/her own campaign does NOT present ANY DANGER to society's interests.

If you got it, you can BURN it, baby!

BURN BABY BURN!