Davis v. Federal Election Commission

2008-06-26

Headline: Law that gave opponents of wealthy, self-financing House candidates higher contribution limits and extra disclosure is struck down, protecting candidates’ right to spend personal funds while blocking asymmetrical fundraising rules.

Holding: Sections 319(a) and 319(b) of BCRA (the “Millionaire’s Amendment”) violate the First Amendment, and the Court struck down the asymmetrical contribution and related disclosure rules.

Real World Impact:

Blocks asymmetrical higher contribution limits for opponents of self‑funding candidates.
Strikes related rapid disclosure rules tied to self‑financing thresholds.
Affects future campaigns, parties, and FEC enforcement nationwide.

Topics: campaign finance, self‑financing candidates, disclosure rules, First Amendment

Summary

Background

Jack Davis, a 2004 and 2006 House candidate who spent large sums of his own money, sued to block parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act known as the “Millionaire’s Amendment.” That law raised contribution limits for a non‑self‑financing opponent and required timely disclosures whenever a candidate’s personal spending pushed an “opposition personal funds amount” (OPFA) past $350,000. Davis declared he would spend about $1 million in 2006 and asked a court to stop the Federal Election Commission from enforcing the rules; the District Court sided with the FEC, and Davis appealed.

Reasoning

The Court focused on whether the statute burdens a candidate’s First Amendment right to spend personal funds. It concluded that by imposing asymmetrical contribution advantages on an opponent when a candidate self‑finances, the law penalizes the exercise of spending for campaign speech. Relying on Buckley v. Valeo, the majority said the government offered no adequate anticorruption or other compelling justification for such discriminatory limits, so the contribution rules and the related disclosure requirements could not stand.

Real world impact

The Court reversed and invalidated §§319(a) and (b), meaning the challenged trigger that let opponents take larger donations and forced extra disclosures is no longer constitutional. Candidates who use personal funds will not automatically activate higher limits for opponents; parties and campaigns that relied on the asymmetrical scheme must adjust now. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens (joined in part by three others) defended the statute as a permissible way for Congress to lessen the advantage of wealthy self‑funders. Justice Ginsburg would have upheld more of the lower court’s analysis and would not revisit Buckley now.