Supreme Court rules for Ross
6/26/2008 - 12:53pm
At least at first glance it seems that today's U.S. Supreme Court decision in the FEC v. Davis case rules for Ross' unfortunate point of view that millionaires should be able to spend unlimited amounts of cash in their quest to win elections without any provisions to help level the playing field for opponents.
The ruling is about a provision in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) that hikes the amount that candidates can collect from donors when they face an opponent who is spending enormous amounts of personal cash.
We've got one homegrown instance here in Colorado this election cycle. Democrats Joann Fitz-gerald and William Shafroth are able to collect more than the legal limit from their donors thanks to Jared Polis pouring nearly $3.7 million into his own campaign.
Law professor Rick Hazen of Loyola law school worries this ruling could be the beginning of a stream that threaten public financing programs. The Campaign Legal Center says:
From the beginning, this case was about damage control. Fortunately, consistent with our friend of the court brief, the Court's decision today did not comment on or affect the general validity of contribution limits. In addition, the Court rightfully rejected arguments made by amici James Madison Center for Free Speech and Citizens United, which encouraged the Supreme Court to take the extraordinary step of addressing in this case the constitutional foundation of lower court decisions that had upheld various state public funding schemes.
Much more to come.
Edited to add:
Today's decision will affect House candidates such as those in Colorado's second district, according to Ben Pershing of the Washington Post. It's unclear whether Fitz-gerald and Shafroth can continue to accept contributions in excess of $2,300.
However, Fitz-gerald and Shafroth had not made great use of the provision at least through the end of March. When I queried the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) several weeks ago about this, Shafroth had 47 individuals giving in excess of $2,300 for the primary for a total of $117,798 beyond what he could have raised under normal limits. Fitz-gerald had just one contributor giving in excess of the $2,300 limit.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
The Supreme Court got two right in one day
After their horrible ruling on habeas corpus for terrorists, it's good to see the Supreme Court get one right.
Nancy, I wish I could get you and others who think like you to understand that the Constitution means what it says and says what it means, and that no level of "good intentions" can justify trampling fundamental rights, such as to defend my home or spend my money as I please (as long as I'm not impinging on fundamental rights of others, so that I can't spend my money on a hit-man for example.)
Sujpreme Court and campaign finance
The author of the previous comment acknowledges that that the legislature may properly restrain his freedom to hire a hit-man. But if he believes that, then he must acknolwedge too that, for the common welfare and the strength of the state,the legislative authority has a duty to restrain him in other ways as well, such as his ability to use his vast wealth to overpower a rival candidate whose election might possibly prove more beneficial to the polity than the millionaire's own election.
"restrain him in other ways"?
Seefweetz,
I absolutely do not acknowledge the right of the government to restrain me in any way they thing is "good for the common welfare". That is not the government's job.
I am properly restrained from hiring a hit-man because preventing murder is a proper fundamental role of government, i.e. supporting our fundamental rights. The restraint is not because it's better for the "common welfare" or "the strength of the state".
There is no fundamental right of a person to have his less wealthy preferred candidate be "defended" against the money of a wealthier opponent. Indeed, if there is a fundamental right here, it is the right of the person with the money to spend it as he chooses, as long as he's not objectively harming someone else by violating our few truly basic rights, such as the right not to be injured or killed or robbed by others.
Your argument is an argument for government to do absolutely anything to anyone. And you might like it when the liberals are in charge, but I guarantee you that Hitler and Stalin and Mao made the same argument you're making.