U.S. justices question law on self-funded candidates
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Several Supreme Court justices on Tuesday expressed concern that a U.S. campaign finance law placed unfair burdens on wealthy, self-funded congressional candidates.
The court considered a challenge to a provision, known as the "millionaire's amendment," that Congress adopted as part of the 2002 campaign finance law to level the playing field for candidates with rich opponents who could spend large amounts of their own money.
It allows congressional candidates to accept higher contributions when they face wealthy self-funded opponents and is part of the McCain-Feingold law, named for Sens. Russell Feingold and John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate.
The court's decision, expected by the end of June, could affect the congressional elections in November, especially those races in which self-funded candidates are running.
Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia appeared most concerned about the law. He said previous limits upheld by the court have been designed to prevent corruption.
"There is no anti-corruption rationale here. The only purpose of this is to level the playing field. And I am deeply suspicious of allowing elections to be conducted under a regime whereby Congress levels the playing field. That seems to be very dangerous," Scalia said.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often casts the decisive vote on the court closely divided between conservative and liberal factions, seemed troubled by a provision that limits political party contributions to self-funded candidates.
"It's of great concern to me because it puts this court ... in the position of preferring one kind of speech over another. And we simply do not do that," Kennedy said.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito asked, "Isn't there something very strange about having different contribution limits for candidates in an election?"
The law is triggered when a candidate for the House of Representatives spends more than $350,000 in personal funds. The opponent then can gather contributions three times the normal limit from individuals and may coordinate with their political party for additional contributions.
There are similar provisions for Senate races.
100 RACES
In the first four years the law has been in effect, more than 100 candidates faced opponents who spent enough of their personal wealth to trigger the provision.
The law was challenged by Jack Davis, a wealthy Buffalo, New York-area Democrat who narrowly lost a congressional race in 2006. Davis argued the law unfairly protects incumbents.
Davis spent more than $2.2 million of his own money in 2006, but lost to Republican Rep. Thomas Reynolds by 51 to 49 percent. Davis earlier this month announced that he is running again this year.
His attorney, Andrew Herman, argued that the provision violated the constitutional free-speech rights of self-financed candidates.
Solicitor General Paul Clement defended the law and urged that it be upheld.
The court's liberal members seemed supportive of the law. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it will produce more political speech, not less, because the opponent will have more money to spend.
(Editing by Alan Elsner)
