Federal Candidates & Officeholders
News & Commentary | Archive Federal candidates and officeholders are prohibited from raising and "directing" soft money. There are, however, exceptions: such as allowances for raising individual funds in limited amounts for tax-exempt get-out-the-vote and voter registration activities, and for raising, also in limited and source-restricted amounts, funds for state and local candidates. Some of these restrictions also apply to activities of state and local candidates. A Promising Exchange with Hasen: One More Note on Davis and Public FinancingThe exchange with Rick Hasen yesterday ended with clarification and a touch of agreement. Rick clarifies that he has not taken a position on the constitutionality of the Millionaire's Amendment. I had jumped too far to the contrary assumption, probably reading too much into Rick's comment on the day of Davis' issuance that it was "[a]ll in all, not a great day for those who believe, as I do, that there is no good reason to allow disparities in wealth to be translated into disparities in political power." It seems that he was less concerned with the Amendment, which he describes as "tangential" to McCain-Feingold, and more with the consequences of how the Court reached its decision. So I am glad to have him correct me on this count. And he further clarifies that in discussing the consequences for public financing systems, he has in mind state and local systems, particularly offering special relief for the candidates faced with independent expenditures against them. He writes: "As with Bob, I don't think this logic necessarily applies on the Presidential level."
(7/8/08) Read More Something To Be Said for Davis?A Note on the Fate of the Millionaire’s Amendment and the Future of Public Financing The New York Times today surveyed the Court term with mixed feelings and worries about the future. Campaign finance did not make the lists of the good or of the bad. For this paper, a hardy editorial voice for conventional reform positions, the omission is something of an event. The possibility of an oversight cannot be discounted, but neither can the chance that the Times did not really care all that much about the Millionaire’s Amendment. Should it?
(7/3/08) Read More Justice Alito for the Court, in DavisWhat first strikes a reader of the Alito opinion for the Court in Davis v. FEC is that reasons are given but not deeply, and not within clear, discernible doctrinal lines. The argument, moreover, seems caught between two directions—in one, the millionaire experiences a "penalty" or "burden" on her own speech, and in the other, the injury is less direct and flows from the distortion that government regulation introduces into the competitive struggle between two candidates.
(6/30/08) Read More The Complexity of the "Equalization Objective" of the Millionaire’s AmendmentSenator Domenici, a leader in the successful affixation of the Millionaire’s Amendment to McCain-Feingold, called it "very complicated." 147 Cong. Rec. S2542 (daily ed. March 20, 2001). At least one brief filed with the Supreme Court has made the same point: "the so-called "Millionaires’ Amendment" governing House races, is complex in its mechanics …." Davis v. FEC, No. 07-320, Br. of Amici DeRossett and Broyhill at 3. The Amendment may certainly be deemed complex if it is judged by comparison to other provisions of the law, because once a millionaire candidate throws her wallet into the ring, each candidate—the millionaire and the opponent—must perform a calculation or file paperwork, or both, to set the Amendment into motion. The millionaire candidate reports what she is planning to spend or has spent; the opponent determines whether this is enough to buy him special relief from the limits, taking into account, under the formula provided by law, his own personal funding and any overall fundraising advantage he enjoys.
(6/10/08) Read More The Millionaires' Day in CourtThe three-judge panel that will have its handiwork reviewed by the Supreme Court, in the case testing the “millionaire’s amendment,” can expect no mercy to be shown. Its reasoning cannot stand. It misused precedent and relied on an “equality” rationale that the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected as a basis for campaign finance regulation. The result it reached is grotesquely odd: that a candidate threatened by the use of an opponent’s wealth ought to be able to accept contributions well over the normal limit—a limit designed to separate corruptive from safer giving—in order to compete with a candidate spending only “clean” personal money.
(1/14/08) Read More Also...Woes of the Millionaires—and Problems for the Amendment Bearing their Name 11/26/07 Note to the FEC: Watch out for Tom Tancredo! 11/15/07 The Colbert Experience, at Law 11/2/07 The Colbert Report 10/22/07 Travel Tips from the FEC: Proposed Rules on Private Plane Use 10/19/07 Mr. Gingrich’s General Counsel Replies 10/3/07 Newt Gingrich, Barred by Law from Exploring a Presidential Candidacy? 10/2/07 The Non-Candidate Candidate, Operating by Rule Outside the Rules 8/21/07 The Millionaire's Complaint: Rejected 8/10/07 |