Has The Supreme Court Declared Victory for the Moles?
In a recent piece in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, I say – as has at least one other commentator – that campaign finance reform is like a never ending game of Whack-A-Mole. Hit one and another one pops up. Stop money here and it flows over there.
On the day that the United States Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller, I wrote on my personal blog that Heller was not the most important decision of the day. I thought that honor belonged to FEC v. Davis, a decision that struck down the “millionaire’s amendment” in the “McCain-Feingold” Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, a provision that raised contribution limits for candidates facing wealthy self-financed opponents. Davis made it clear that a majority of the Court rejected “equalization” as a rationale for the regulation of election related speech. It was my view that this would lead to the invalidation of the provision of “rescue funds” (additional money provided in response to higher levels of spending by privately financed candidates or independent groups) in public financing schemes, a position which I developed more fully in the Harvard JLPP piece.
That shoe has not yet dropped, but a size 14 flowing from the same doctrinal position did drop this morning in Citizens United v. FEC.