Court Strikes Down Campaign Finance ‘Millionaire’s Amendment’

[Wretched Excess]

the first amendment won today,too.

Court Strikes Down Campaign Finance ‘Millionaire’s Amendment’

finance law that sought to level the playing field for congressional candidates facing wealthy, self-funding opponents.

The provision allowed congressional candidates to collect more than the normal contributions per donor when they face wealthy opponents who pour hundreds of thousands of their own dollars into a race.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. , the court’s newest member and one of two justices appointed by President Bush, wrote the decision that nullified the so-called millionaire’s amendment in the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

He said, “While BCRA does not impose a cap on a candidate’s expenditure of personal funds, it imposes an unprecedented penalty on any candidate who robustly exercises that First Amendment right, requiring him to choose between the right to engage in unfettered political speech and subjection to discriminatory fundraising limitations. The burden is not justified by any governmental interest in eliminating corruption or the perception of corruption.”

The majority also attacked the provision’s strategy of raising contribution limits for challengers, an attempt by Congress to level the fundraising playing field.

“The argument that a candidate’s speech may be restricted in order to ‘level electoral opportunities’ has ominous implications because it would permit Congress to arrogate the voters’ authority to evaluate the strengths of candidates competing for office,” Alito wrote.

Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer , Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter . Ginsburg and Breyer wrote an additional dissent.

More

[Wretched Excess]

of course, it doesn't do us much good that this bill was co-authored by  . . . john mccain.

[Willow]

did I understand it correctly. They wanted a law that let the poor candidate collect more than the quota in campaign funds because he faced a rich opponent? Kinda like Joe Blow vs. Bloomberg? The part I know I don't understand is curtailing speech??

[Willow]

of course, it doesn't do us much good that this bill was co-authored by  . . . john mccain.

I cannot stand John McCain, I hate it that I have to vote for the bastich!

[Wretched Excess]

did I understand it correctly. They wanted a law that let the poor candidate collect more than the quota in campaign funds because he faced a rich opponent? Kinda like Joe Blow vs. Bloomberg? The part I know I don't understand is curtailing speech??

here is the best explanation I could find, and even it is a little convoluted:

Davis contended that the rule is unconstitutional because it limits his First Amendment rights by "enabling his opponent to raise more money and to use that money to finance speech that counteracts and thus diminishes the effectiveness of Davis' own speech," the decision noted.

[Baruch Menachem]

of course, it doesn't do us much good that this bill was co-authored by  . . . john mccain.

I cannot stand John McCain, I hate it that I have to vote for the bastich!

When it comes to November, I will be voting with a clothes pin on my nose.

I am still mad at him because of Lincoln savings.   He was incredibly stupid or very dirty.  I think he was both.   That he now presents himself as moral arbiter......

[Chris_]

of course, it doesn't do us much good that this bill was co-authored by  . . . john mccain. ::)

I cannot stand John McCain, I hate it that I have to vote for the bastich!

McCain/Feingold -- who the hell needs a 1st Amendment anyway?

[Peter3_1]

McCain was elected in 1981 and Keating began sending money contributions in 1982. McCain was obviously "green" enough, naive enough, not to figure it out. Something which may account for his ill concieven Campaigh Finance Law.

What McCain did wrong was not to report and pay for the aircraft trips in Keating's plane until late, that's it. If every politician who did that were to leave office tomorrow, you could count the remaining members in each house on one hand.

Being anoyed at McCain is perfectly reasonable. Feankly, I'd rather we had Duncan Hunter for a candidate. But we must play the hand we are delt, no matter how much we wish there was another.

[Chris_]

McCain was elected in 1981 and Keating began sending money contributions in 1982. McCain was obviously "green" enough, naive enough, not to figure it out. Something which may account for his ill concieven Campaigh Finance Law.

What McCain did wrong was not to report and pay for the aircraft trips in Keating's plane until late, that's it. If every politician who did that were to leave office tomorrow, you could count the remaining members in each house on one hand.

Being anoyed at McCain is perfectly reasonable. Feankly, I'd rather we had Duncan Hunter for a candidate. But we must play the hand we are delt, no matter how much we wish there was another.

Exactly -- I am not letting McCain off the hook -- and the current pressure against illegal immigration proves political pressure CAN move a President's position -- but better a slightly left-center POTUS than a radical leftist/socialist.

[Chris_]

What McCain did wrong was not to report and pay for the aircraft trips in Keating's plane until late, that's it. If every politician who did that were to leave office tomorrow, you could count the remaining members in each house on one hand.

And that would be a bad thing because.............

[Peter3_1]

We'd have to get by with no laws passed until enough were replaced. It could eaSILY TAKE MONTHS AND MONTHS...........say, ........maybe we should go with it......