Davis v. FEC Lawsuit of 2008
The case challenged the constitutionality of a provision in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, specifically the “Millionaire’s Amendment.” The Millionaire’s Amendment was designed to address the advantage wealthy candidates have when self-funding their campaigns. Under this provision, if a candidate contributed significant personal funds to their own campaign, their opponent was allowed to receive increased individual contribution limits from $2,300 to $6,900 per donor during that cycle, benefit from relaxed restrictions on coordinated expenditures with their political party. The law applied to candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate and aimed to level the playing field in campaigns.
Jack Davis, a wealthy businessman, ran as a Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in New York’s 26th Congressional District in the 2000’s. Davis self-financed his campaigns, spending millions of dollars from his own funds. He argued that the Millionaire’s Amendment unfairly punished candidates like him who relied on self-funding, effectively penalizing their right to use personal resources for political advertising.
Davis filed a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission (FEC), claiming the Millionaire’s Amendment violated his First Amendment rights by discouraging self-funded candidates from exercising their right to free speech. He also claimed that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment by treating self-funded candidates differently from their opponents.
The case was initially heard by a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which upheld the constitutionality of the Millionaire’s Amendment. Davis appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, as allowed for campaign finance cases under BCRA.
The Davis v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) lawsuit of 2008 arose from a challenge to the constitutionality of a provision in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, specifically the “Millionaire’s Amendment.” This case tested the balance between campaign finance regulations and the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and equal treatment.
The Supreme Court’s ruling, issued on June 26, 2008, was a 5-4 decision that struck down the Millionaire’s Amendment, ruling that it burdened self-funded candidates’ freedom of speech. Justice Alito emphasized that candidates have a constitutional right to use their own funds for political expression, and the amendment effectively penalized that right by granting their opponents fundraising advantages. The law’s intent to “level the playing field” in elections was deemed insufficient to justify restrictions on free speech.
The dissenting opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by Justices Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer. Arguing that Congress had a legitimate interest in ensuring fair electoral competition and addressing the potential imbalance created by wealthy candidates. They maintained that the law did not restrict the speech of self-funded candidates but rather enhanced the ability of their opponents to compete. They asserted that the amendment promoted the integrity of the electoral process by addressing the outsized influence of wealth in campaigns.