For Immediate Release
Jun 26, 2008
Supreme Court Backs Davis in Fighting Special Interests
Supreme Court Backs Davis in Fighting Special Interests
In a majority decision in Davis v. Federal Election Commission, the United States Supreme Court overturned the so-called “millionaire’s amendment” to campaign finance law.
The Court held that Sections 319(a) and (b) of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violate the First Amendment. The Court agreed with Davis that separate limits for self-funding and non self-funding candidates placed an undue burden on Mr. Davis’ First Amendment right to spend his own money for campaign speech. Mr. Davis was required to choose between the right to engage in unfettered political speech and subjection to discriminatory fundraising limitations or to work within an existing system that is designed to protect incumbents and the status quo.
The Court also held that the legislative rationales were flawed – it didn’t find effective anti-corruption rationales that existed in previous cases like Buckley v. Valeo, nor did it find the argument for a “level playing field” to be compelling, holding,
“Different candidates have different strengths. Some are wealthy; others have wealthy supporters who are willing to make large contributions. Some are celebrities; some have the benefit of a well-known family name. Leveling electoral opportunities means making and implementing judgments about which strengths should be permitted to contribute to the outcome of an election. The Constitution, however, confers upon voters, not Congress, the power to choose the Members of the House of Representatives.”
In response to the Court’s decision, Mr. Davis released the following statement:
Akron, NY – “The Supreme Court’s decision is a positive step for those of us struggling to restore good government to Washington. It returns power to the voters and taxpayers, but there is still more work to be done.”
“When I spend my own money to finance my campaigns, I am beholden only to the voters and my own conscience. The law allowed special interest campaign contributors to plow even more of their money into campaigns against people like me – candidates who refuse their money and the influence it buys.”
“Special interest money buys too much power in Washington and that’s wrong. The only meaningful solution is effectively administered elections free of this undue influence.”
###