Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Supreme Court Will Review Millionaire's Amendment, Meant to Level Playing Field in Campaigns

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 06:02 PM
Original message
Supreme Court Will Review Millionaire's Amendment, Meant to Level Playing Field in Campaigns
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/01/court_to_review_millionaires_a.php

Court to review millionaire's amendment

Supreme Court Will Review Millionaire's Amendment, Meant to Level Playing Field in Campaigns

Staff
AP News

Jan 11, 2008 15:57 EST

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to review a campaign finance law dubbed the millionaire's amendment, which allows candidates to accept larger contributions when their opponents spend heavily from their personal fortunes.

The measure, part of the 2002 campaign finance law, is meant to help candidates facing wealthy opponents stay financially competitive. Jack Davis, the unsuccessful congressional candidate who is challenging the law, called it a way to "protect well-financed incumbents who wrote the statute."

Once a self-financed candidate's spending hits certain thresholds, a rival relying on fund raising can collect increasingly higher amounts from donors to catch up.

Jack Davis, a Democrat who narrowly lost a congressional race in New York last year, .

Davis, a Democrat, spent more than $2.2 million of his own money in 2006. He lost to incumbent Republican Rep. Thomas Reynolds, 51 percent to 49 percent.

Reynolds did not receive increased contributions after Davis reported exceeding the threshold, $350,000 in House races, Solicitor General Paul Clement said in urging the court to dismiss Davis' case.

Davis said the law violates his First Amendment rights because it treats personal expenditures as suspect and encourages significant increases in contributed funds to his opponent.

A three-judge court in Washington upheld the provision, saying Davis failed to show that his speech had been constrained by the millionaire's amendment. It "does not limit in any way the use of a candidate's personal wealth in his run for office," the court said.

The case is Davis v. Federal Election Commission, 07-320.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC