Millionaire congressional candidates like Jack Davis cannot be treated differently under campaign finance laws than less wealthy candidates, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this morning.

Deciding Davis’ challenge to the so-called “Millionaire’s Amendment,” which loosens fund raising restrictions on candidates facing off against self-funded opponents, the high court agreed with Davis that the amendment infringes on the First Amendment rights of wealthy candidates.

“The unprecedented step of imposing different contribution and coordinated party expenditure limits on candidates vying for the same seat is antithetical to the First Amendment,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court’s majority opinion.

The justices voted 5-4 on the issue of the constitutionality of the Millionaire’s Amendment, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joining in the opinion.

Other justices concurred with the majority’s opinion that Davis had standing to bring the case, but argued in dissents that the Millionaire’s Amendment is constitutional.

“The Millionaire’s Amendment represents a modest, sensible and plainly constitutional attempt by Congress to minimize the advantages enjoyed by wealthy candidates vis-a-vis those who must rely on the support of others to fund their pursuit of public office,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a dissent that was joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

The amendment allows the opponents of candidates who contribute more than $350,000 of their own money to their campaigns to raise $6,900 — three times the typical limit — from individual donors.

The law also requires self-funded candidates who have passed the $350,000 threshold to quickly report all their additional personal contributions.

Davis, a Clarence Democrat, ran against Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds, R-Clarence, both in 2004 and 2006.

The millionaire industrialist spent $2.2 million of his own money on his 2006 campaign and is vowing to spend $3 million this time. With Reynolds retiring, Davis finds himself in a four-way primary battle for the Democratic nomination in the 26th District, which stretches from Amherst eastward to the Rochester suburbs.

Davis challenged the Millionaire’s Amendment in court, losing at the lower levels, even though Reynolds never cashed in on the provision allowing him to raise more from individual donors. The provision is part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law.

Source: Buffalo News