High court backs Davis in campaign finance fight
Updated: 06/27/08 6:44 AM
WASHINGTON — In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court on Thursday backed congressional candidate Jack Davis’ suit to declare unconstitutional the so-called “millionaires amendment” in the bipartisan campaign finance law.
Davis, a Democratic industrialist from Clarence, spent $3.5 million of his own money in unsuccessful attempts to defeat incumbent Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds, R-Clarence, in 2004 and 2006.
The voided law permitted challengers to candidates who spend $350,000 of their own money to triple the amount of money they could ordinarily raise.
The narrow court majority based its decision on a precedent in the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling that said
money spent in campaigning is the same as the free speech that is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel A. Alito said, “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 [seize] the voters’ authority to evaluate the strengths of candidates competing for office.”
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N. Y., said the court had issued a “confounding decision that takes the First Amendment to an illogical, distorted extreme.” Schumer supported Davis two years ago.
Davis is running again this year and has vowed to spend $3 million of his own money to get to Congress.
Reform groups and Davis’ 2008 opponents all denounced the ruling. Columbia law professor Richard Briffault said the decision “accelerates the court’s turn against campaign finance reform.”
The Campaign Legal Center said “the Davis decision was a disappointment but not a surprise. The Roberts Court has been gradually chipping away at the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation and overturning an increasing number of existing reforms at the federal and state-level.”
Davis’ opponents questioned the role his vast resources will play in the coming primary for the Democratic nomination.
Amherst attorney Alice J. Kryzan said, “At a time when everyday people are struggling to make ends meet, we should be fighting to remove the influence of big money from politics rather than giving millionaires and special interests even more power over the political process.”
Jon Powers, the endorsed Democratic candidate, said through campaign manager John Gerken that 26th District voters will not let a “millionaire . . . buy this election.”
Kathy Konst, an Erie County legislator who recently joined the race, said she was surprised the court ruled “so early. It gives millionaires the right to buy an election.”
But Davis said his victory is a blow to special interests, Washington lobbyists and others who influence elections.
“When I spend my own money to finance my campaigns, I am beholden only to the voters and my own conscience,” he said in a prepared statement. “The law allowed special-interest campaign contributors to plow even more of their money into campaigns against people like me — candidates who refuse their money and the influence it buys.
“Special interest money buys too much power in Washington, and that’s wrong. The only meaningful solution is effectively administered elections free of this undue influence.”
Dissenting were Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen G. Breyer.
Joining Alito in the majority were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy.
dturner@buffnews.com and rmccarthy@buffnews.com
