Monday, June 30, 2008
Editorial: How much for a Senate seat?
The Supreme Court won't let Congress level the electoral playing field.
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Amidst the hullaballoo over the U.S. Supreme Court's predictable decision on guns last week, another ruling with broad ramifications slipped by with little comment. The Constitution, it turns out, protects the right of wealthy Americans to buy their way into office.
Politicos have long known that money is key in any election. More money means more advertising, more staff and a better chance to spread the campaign message. Historically, the candidate who spends the most is most likely to win.
That becomes particularly problematic when a wealthy candidate pumps a bunch of his own money into his campaign. If his opponent relies only on fundraising, where individual contributions are capped, she quickly finds herself outspent.
The court years ago ruled that individuals may spend as much of their own money as they want on a race. Congress therefore sought to level the playing field with the "Millionaire's Amendment" to campaign finance law.
Basically, it says that if a candidate spends more than $350,000 of his own money on a campaign, his opponent may accept more money from individual donors until she catches up. The $2,300 individual contribution cap temporarily rises to $6,900.
In a 5-4 decision, the conservative wing of the court rejected that rule. The majority argued the millionaire amendment limits free speech.
Even if one accepts the dubious proposition that money and speech are equivalent, the amendment allowed more, not less, speech by giving candidates access to more funds.
Nevertheless, it is the court's decision and must be honored. Candidates once again can spend as much of their own money as they want buying their way into office. Meanwhile, less wealthy opponents must find more and more donors to try to keep up.
This was the Roberts Court's third foray into campaign finance law, and on each occasion, it ruled against regulations. The ideal candidacy, it appears, is one unfettered by federal laws that foster fair elections. Indeed, many court watchers forecast Chief Justice John Roberts and his loyal majority will next eviscerate other campaign contribution limitations, including those placed on unions and corporations.
In the current election cycle, more than two dozen congressional candidates so far have committed more than $350,000 of their own money to their campaigns. They include Democrats and Republicans, and none is from Virginia.
Thanks to the Supreme Court's decision, they will have a big leg up on their opponents come November. Disparities in wealth will continue to create disparities in political power.
