Court to hear campaign finance case

by James Oliphant

Those who become exercised over campaign spending limits, believing they violate free speech, will get a day in court Tuesday.

The Supreme Court will hear a constitutional challenge to the so-called Millionaire's Amendment to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, the spending reform law passed in 2002.

The amendment permits congressional candidates who run against wealthy, self-financed opponents to raise contributions subject to higher contribution limits.

For example, in the House, the provision allows House candidates to raise contributions in excess of the usual $2,300 cap when they are running against wealthy candidates who spend more than $350,000 of their personal funds on their race..

Jack Davis was a self-financed candidate who ran twice for the House in New York. He now argues that the amendment is unconstitutional because the higher contribution limit conferred on his opponent has chills his First Amendment right to spend an unlimited amount of personal wealth on his campaign.

The three-judge district court in Washington, D.C. rejected the claim and ruled that the provision does not burden speech because it places no restriction on a candidate's ability to spend his or her personal wealth.

A bevy of public interest groups, determined to keep as they see it a level playing field between millionaire candidates and other challengers contend that the amendment is constitutional.

''While the 'Millionaire's Amendment' was never part of the original McCain-Feingold proposal banning soft money, which is the heart of BCRA, the provision, nevertheless, is a constitutional means for addressing the issues raised by wealthy self-financed candidates,'' said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, said in a statement.

The Bush administration also argues the amendment is legal, saying it its brief that it is a provision is a ''modest and constitutionally appropriate attempt to counteract the perception that a candidate who is wealthy enough can buy a seat in Congress.''

Davis ran for the House twice, in 2004 and 2006, against incumbent Rep. Thomas Reynolds, and lost both times, spending more than a million of his own money each time.

The amendment "targets a class of candidates who are exercising their fundamental right to pay for their own electoral efforts and diminishes the the exercise of that right in a direct and substanial manner," Davis says in his brief.

He also argues that financial disclosure requirements in the law for self-financing candidates give the opponent a distinct competitive advantage.

Davis is also backed by some public interest groups who view such limits as violative of the First Amendment.