Posted by Tina
Justices for Free Speech Wall Street Journal
In Davis v. FEC, a 5-4 majority overturned a portion of the 2002 McCain-Feingold law that exempted the political opponents of rich candidates from the usual fund-raising limits in order to “level the playing field. ** Millionaires had to report expenditures within 24 hours, while their opponents were allowed greater coordination with political parties and could raise three times the usual $2,300 limit on individual contributions. ** Reformers justify the special rules for millionaires by crying fairness an argument that Justice Samuel Alito dispatched in his majority opinion. ** “The argument that a candidate’s speech may be restricted in order to ‘level electoral opportunities’ has ominous implications,” he wrote, and is “antithetical to the First Amendment.” ** If Congress can massage the rules to level the playing field for candidates of differing personal means, what’s to stop Congress from doing it for other reasons and in other ways? Some candidates are celebrities, others have famous political names, and still others may be adored by the local newspaper. Should Congress level the field for their opponents too? No prior Court opinions, Justice Alito added, support the notion that reducing the “natural advantage” of rich candidates is a legitimate government objective.