Campaigns/Elections

Another Provision of the Incumbent Protection Act Falls

|

On Thursday, the same day it upheld the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment right to freedom of speech by rejecting one of the most blatantly self-serving provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The same legislators who did not like being criticized on radio and TV close to elections also were dismayed by the prospect that their huge electoral advantages as incumbents might be overcome by wealthy challengers freely spending their own money. Hence Congress decreed that in such races the less wealthy candidate would be allowed to collect three times the standard limit from each contributor, although his opponent would still be bound by the usual rules.

Without speculating about the motivation for such decidedly unevenhanded treatment, the Court ruled that it violates the First Amendment. "We have never upheld the constitutionality of a law that imposes different contribution limits for candidates who are competing against each other," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. Under "millionaire's amendment" to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, he noted, candidates who want to spend their own money on their own campaigns must "choose between the First Amendment right to engage in unfettered political speech and subjection to discriminatory fund-raising limitations."

This burden, Alito added, "is not justified by any governmental interest in eliminating corruption or the perception of corruption," the rationale the Court has cited in upholding campaign contribution limits. Instead the government argued that "asymmetrical limits are justified because they would 'level electoral opportunities for candidates of different personal wealth.'" Alito found this rationale troubling: 

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….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.

NEXT: Bacterial Evolution Disproves Conservatism?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Another blow to ‘fairness’, oh darn.

    I wonder what they will do if they ever get to hear a Fairness Doctrine case about talk radio? You know, if that Fairness Doctrine/Energy Policy/Impeachment/War Crimes bill we were promised 2 years ago ever makes it to print and law?

  2. So how the fuck can they let ANY campaign finance regulation stand? Why do only millionaires running for office have first amendment rights? Why can’t I spend my money on any speech I want?

  3. Yea, what Warren said.

  4. What Guy said.

  5. Well, Warren, Guy, and J sub D, according to a scandalously unjust ruling by the SCOTUS, you can’t spend your money on any speech you want because it would create the appearance of impropiety [or, as above, the “perception of corruption”].

    In other words, according to the SCOTUS, you can have your speech rights curtailed, not in response to any actual wrongdoing of yours, but in response to any random third party’s unproven or false perception of wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing on your part.

  6. Well, Warren, Guy, and J sub D, according to a scandalously unjust ruling by the SCOTUS, you can’t spend your money on any speech you want because it would create the appearance of impropiety [or, as above, the “perception of corruption”].

    In other words, according to the SCOTUS, you can have your speech rights curtailed, not in response to any actual wrongdoing of yours, but in response to any random third party’s unproven or false perception of wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing on your part.

    Oh. It’s OK then.

  7. Let me make a bold prediction: Jacob Sullum will paraphrase this blog post, add a few more words, and then pass the result off as his latest syndicated weekly column.

  8. NP,
    That’s not a pattern particular to Jacob. Didn’t you get the memo? We are the unpaid editors and fact-checkers of the Reason staff.

  9. Warren,

    I know. I just don’t understand why anyone would publish his draft if he intends to publish the final product, that’s all.

  10. Is it too early for the current SCOTUS members to decide we have property rights, or do we have to wait for Ms. O’Connor to pass on?

  11. Despite Bush’s numerous, irreconcilable mistakes, I think the nomination of Samuel Alito will go down in an otherwise anemic “win” column.

    So how the fuck can they let ANY campaign finance regulation stand?

    They can’t just re-review the constitutionality of a law once the make the (in this case, horribly wrong) decision. They need to knock down provisions as the cases come up, which it looks like they’re doing so far.

  12. “The Constitution, however, confers upon voters, not Congress, the power to choose the Members of the House of Representatives.”

    Oh, snap, Sam! I’d watch the jokes. John McCain has a long memory, and no sense of humor at all. If the men’s room at the Supreme Court runs out of toilet paper tomorrow, I won’t be a bit surprised.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.