The Millionaires’ Amendment

OPINION:

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear arguments surrounding the so-called Millionaires’ Amendment attached to the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance restrictions gives reason for hope.

This month, the high court announced it would hear oral arguments in the case, which was dismissed last summer by a federal court of appeals; this is perhaps an indication that the court is willing to consider striking down a particularly unsavory portion of an altogether unsavory law.

“The Millionaires’ Amendment does not create disparities, but rather seeks to reduce them by ’leveling the playing-field’ between candidates,” wrote federal Appeals Judge Thomas B. Griffith in his concurring opinion. We beg to differ. Created by congressional leaders seeking to maintain their grasp on power, the Millionaires’ Amendment offers unjustified protections to incumbents — especially those with substantial war chests — by allowing donors to contribute three times the individual campaign contribution limit of $2,300 to a candidate whose opponent has reached a certain self-funding threshold, $350,000 for House races and a varying amount for Senate races.

The amendment perversely twists the concept of fair play through its disclosure requirements that give an unfair advantage, usually to incumbents. It does nothing to prevent corruption, which is supposedly the impetus for campaign-finance restrictions.

The lawsuit challenging the amendment was brought by Democrat Jack Davis, a wealthy candidate who ran in 2004 and 2006 against Rep. Thomas Reynolds, New York Republican. During the 2006 race, Mr. Davis spent more than $2.2 million of his own money but lost 52 percent to 48 percent. While Mr. Reynolds did not receive a tripling of funds under the amendment, Mr. Davis has rightfully argued that the law violates the freedom of speech clause in the First Amendment through its onerous disclosure stipulations.

Michael Toner, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, told The Washington Times that because the Supreme Court has in the past rejected the argument supporting the creation of a “level playing field,”there is room to argue that striking down this amendment is in the best interest of government. We hope this argument wins out when the court hands down its decision this year, as the amendment affected roughly 50 congressional races during the 2006 election cycle and could affect dozens of others during the 2008 cycle.