A Stitch in Haste

“Different candidates have different strengths. Some are wealthy; others have wealthy supporters who are willing to make large contributions. Some are celebrities; some have the benefit of a well-known family name. Leveling electoral opportunities means making and implementing judgments about which strengths should be permitted to contribute to the outcome of an election. The Constitution, however, confers upon voters, not Congress, the power to choose the Members of the House of Representatives, and it is a dangerous business for Congress to use the election laws to influence the voters’ choices.”
–Davis v. Federal Election Commission

They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.
–Kurt Vonnegut, “Harrison Bergeron” (1961)

To review: The Supreme Court, in its schizophrenic campaign finance decision Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), held that it is constitutionally protected speech to spend money to get yourself elected to public office, but not to get someone else elected to that same public office. So, for example, Michael Bloomberg was able to spend $70 million to run for re-election as mayor of New York, but I was barred by law from donating 0.1% of that to his opponent’s campaign.

This created a pesky problem for incumbent politicians: rich people might actually spend money to run against them. Unacceptable. So they enacted, in a patently self-serving maneuver, an exemption from the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), a/k/a “McCain-Feingold.” This exemption, generally called the “Millionaire’s Amendment,” allowed candidates to exceed McCain-Feingold’s limits if their opponents (who, recall from Buckley, can always spend as much of their own money as they want) spent beyond a certain amount.

(My understanding, incidentally, is that the Millionaire’s Amendment was forced upon John McCain as a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum in order to secure enough votes to pass BCRA in the first place.)

Fast-forward to yesterday. The Supreme Court quite rightly struck down the Millionaire’s Amendment as a violation of the First Amendment:

We have never upheld the constitutionality of a law that imposes different contribution limits for candidates who are competing against each other, and we agree with Davis that this scheme impermissibly burdens his First Amendment right to spend his own money for campaign speech.
…
While BCRA does not impose a cap on a candidate’s expenditure of personal funds, it imposes an unprecedented penalty on any candidate who robustly exercises that First Amendment right. … [A] candidate who wishes to exercise that right has two choices: abide by a limit on personal expenditures or endure the burden that is placed on that right by the activation of a scheme of discriminatory contribution limits.

In other words, there is no functional difference between forbidding you from spending your own money and “merely” penalizing you for it. Since the government cannot engage in the former, it ought not be able to engage in the latter. Hardly a controversial syllogism.

Meanwhile, since “campaign finance” jurisprudence is First Amendment jurisprudence, strict scrutiny applies: Is the restriction necessary to achieve a compelling government interest? Justice Alito holds no punches:

The burden imposed by §319(a) on the expenditure of personal funds is not justified by any governmental interest in eliminating corruption or the perception of corruption. The Buckley Court reasoned that reliance on personal funds reduces the threat of corruption, and therefore §319(a), by discouraging use of personal funds, disserves the anticorruption interest. [Bold added; underline in original.]

The Court also rejected “leveling the playing field” (i.e., restricting speech to equalize it) as a legitimate government interest. The Court saw the Millionaire’s Amendment for what it was: Naked, brazen incumbent entrenchment.

There is a downside to the decision, however:

The advantage that wealthy candidates now enjoy and that §319(a) seeks to reduce is an advantage that flows directly from Buckley’s disparate treatment of expenditures and contributions. If that approach is sound — and the Government does not urge us to hold otherwise — it is hard to see how undoing the consequences of that decision can be viewed as a compelling interest.

Translation: There appears to be no interest on the Court — or at least an insufficient number of votes — to revisit Buckley outright. That’s unfortunate. (Justice Stevens, meanwhile, would resolve Buckley’s schizophrenic holding by going in the “Harrison Bergeron” direction and allowing the government to restrict self-funded campaigns equally with contribution-funded campaigns — i.e., no First Amendment for anyone.)

(The Court also struck down a disclosure requirement associated with the Millionaire’s Amendment on similar reasoning.)

The case is Davis v. Federal Election Commission, No. 07–320 (June 26, 2008) (PDF – 39 pages). The Millionaire’s Amendment appears as an appendix in the decision. Note that Buckley v. Valeo is on my list of “Worst Supreme Court Cases.”

—

Every campaign finance case is opportunity for libertarians to “stand above it all” and sigh with disappointment (disgust?). All sides in the debate seem to agree on one thing: The whole point of the exercise is to combat corruption in politics. Fair enough, and noble enough.

But it is the libertarians, and only the libertarians, who ask the precedent question of why we have so much corruption in politics. The answer is simple: Because government does so much that invites corruption, that caters to corruption and that perpetuates corruption. Things that have nothing to do with the core functions of government — the functions that the Framers did, and most people today do, associate with a free society. Things that are explicitly designed to benefit, not everyone equally or equitably, but some at the expense of others. From earmarks to tax breaks, from nanny statism to nanny subsidies, from oil wells to oil wars.

If the politicians didn’t do so much that they were never meant to do, then no one would try to buy them. That would be the best “campaign finance reform” of all.