The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the "millionaire's amendment" as an unfair way to help opponents of wealthy candidates who spend from their personal fortunes.The law allows candidates to receive larger contributions when their wealthy opponents spend heavily from their personal fortunes.
The court says by a 5-4 vote that the law violates the First Amendment.
The law was challenged by Jack Davis, a New York Democrat who has so far spent nearly $4 million of his own money in two losing campaigns for Congress and says he will spend another $3 million this year.
Davis says the law unfairly rewards his opponents by letting them exceed campaign fundraising limits simply because Davis dipped into his personal funds.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that if the millionaire's amendment raised the contribution limits for all candidates, Davis's challenge to the law "would plainly fail."
Locally the millionaires amendment has kicked in in the Democratic primary in the 2nd Congresional district where the super-rich Jared Polis has been essentially self-funding his entire campaign against Joan Fitz-gerald and Will Shafroth.
I have mixed feelings about the decision. I understand the logic behind the Court's ruling but my concerns about our democracy trending towards an oligarchy are very real. Our electoral process should be more than just the play thing of the wealthy. Polis, for example, has
- bought himself a seat on the State Board of Education
- bankrolled a disastrous constitutional amendment
- bought himself out of that mess by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on attorneys, lobbyists and political consultants
- donated close to $4 million dollars so far in this primary season
A leveling of the playing field for those candidates opposing a self-funding multi-millionaire seems to me to be in the best interests of the country.
Marc Ambinder has more from the national perspective and what this could mean for public financing of elections.
No comments:
Post a Comment