Supreme Court Takes A Bite Out Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 and May Endanger Even More Basic Campaign Finance Laws

This year's legislation from the court strikes down the "Millionaire's Amendment" which allows easing of campaign finance rules when a candidate is faced with an opponent who can spend large amounts of his or her own money.

Richard B. Schmitt at the Los Angeles Times explains in "Supreme Court rejects 'millionaire's amendment' to campaign finance reform ":

The "millionaire's amendment" to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 permitted candidates to receive larger campaign contributions when their opponents spent heavily out of their own pockets. The amendment to the law, commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act, was viewed as an attempt to level the playing field for candidates and to prevent personal wealth from becoming a qualification for elected office.

As the AP noted in "Justices strike down 'millionaire's amendment '":

Chief Justice John Roberts and Alito, the most recently appointed justices, appear to be moving the court away from its earlier backing of the 2002 political campaign reforms.

Alito succeeded Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a decisive force in support of the reforms.

Last year, with Roberts and Alito aboard, the court eased legal barriers against corporate- and union-financed television ads, saying free speech rights take precedence over government restrictions on political advertising.

LAT's Schmitt also wrote:

Legal experts said Thursday that by rejecting the idea that Congress could attempt to level the playing field of campaigns, the court cast doubt on the viability of its 1990 ruling, potentially imperiling state and federal limits on corporate and union contributions.

"It is the strongest sign yet that those limits are in serious danger of being struck down," said Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "This is not a good day for those who believe . . . it should be permissible to limit wealth in the political process so that disparities in wealth don't translate into disparities in political influence."

 The Christian Science Monitor revealed that it was the Gang of Five at work again.  John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas joined Samuel Alito in making this decision.  For some reason other publications were reluctant to publish the names of the deciding justices.

The Warren Richey in the CSM piece linked above adds:

In striking down the law, the majority justices said the campaign-finance laws are designed to eliminate corruption or the appearance of corruption in the political system by limiting the role of money. But Section 319 seems to jettison this goal, they said, by increasing contribution limits for candidates who accept outside donations.

In his dissent, Stevens said combating corruption or the appearance of corruption isn't the only government interest at stake in the nation's campaign-finance laws. He said the government also has an interest in reducing the influence of wealth on election victories and the appearance that wealth alone dictates those results.

"The Millionaire's Amendment quiets no speech at all," Stevens wrote. "On the contrary, it does no more than assist the opponent of a self-funding candidate in his attempts to make his voice heard."

Stevens added, "This amplification in no way mutes the voice of the millionaire, who remains able to speak as loud and as long as he likes in support of his campaign."

 Billionaires everywhere are rejoicing at the end of democracy in the US.   I guess we could call it a moneyocracy now.  I'm sure Ahnold will be starting his exploratory committee the November 5, 2008 if McCain is defeated this fall.  And start passing around the dough to get that pesky 22nd amendment changed. 

tags: supreme court decision  supreme court  gang of five  

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit