Term: 2007
Docket: 07-320
Davis v. Fec
- Pro
07-320 DAVIS V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION DECISION BELOW: 501 FS 2d 22 EXPEDITED BRIEFING CERT. GRANTED 1/11/2008 QUESTION PRESENTED: Section 319 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 created the so-called “Millionaires’ Amendment.” The three-judge district court found that Congress enacted section 319 to achieve equity between congressional candidates utilizing personal funds for their campaigns and candidates relying mainly on contributed funds. Under the statute, when candidates for the United States House of Representatives exceed $350,000 in personal campaign expenditures their opponents may be entitled to receive: 1) contributions from donors at triple the statutory limit; 2) contributions from donors who have reached their statutory limit for aggregate campaign donations; and 3) coordinated expenditures from party committees in excess of the statutory limit. To effectuate application of section 319, the statute also imposes significant notification and disclosure obligations upon self- financed candidates. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the three-judge district court erred in finding that Congress’s attempt to equalize a potential imbalance in resources between congressional candidates violates neither the First Amendment to the United States Constitution nor the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 2. If equalizing a potential imbalance in resources of congressional candidates is constitutional, whether the federal statutory provision accomplishes the stated purpose. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 06-01185
In the Davis v. Federal Election Commission case of 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sections of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) were unconstitutional. The plaintiff, Jack Davis, a self-financed candidate for Congress in New York State argued that BCRA's "Millionaire’s Amendment" violated his First and Fifth Amendment rights by raising contribution limits for his opponent when he spent over $350,000 of personal funds on his campaign. The court agreed with Davis in a 5-4 decision stating that this provision imposed an unfair burden on wealthy candidates who chose to finance their own campaigns and infringed upon their free speech rights under the First Amendment as it was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
In the dissenting opinion for Davis v. FEC, Justice Stevens argued that the Millionaire's Amendment did not violate First Amendment rights and was a legitimate attempt by Congress to level the playing field in political campaigns. He contended that wealthy self-financed candidates have an unfair advantage over their opponents who rely on contributions from others, which can distort public debate. The amendment aimed to mitigate this disparity by raising contribution limits for candidates facing self-funded opponents, thereby promoting equal opportunity for political speech among all candidates regardless of personal wealth. Furthermore, he asserted that it does not limit or penalize any candidate’s expenditure but rather encourages more speech from other sources as a counterbalance. Therefore, according to him, striking down such provisions undermines efforts towards campaign finance reform and maintaining electoral integrity.
