By JODI SOKOLOWSKI
Buffalo Law Journal

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday in an appeal brought by Akron businessman Jack Davis that federal election-law provisions that impose different campaign contribution limits on candidates competing for the same congressional seat are unconstitutional.

The so-called "Millionaire's Amendment" in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 relaxed fundraising limits for Congressional candidates when a self-financing opponent spends more than $350,000 of his or her personal funds.

The non-self-financing candidate can accept individual donations up to $6,900, even if individual donors already reached the normal contribution limit of $2,300. The provision also allows party officials to coordinate on campaign spending. There are similar provisions for Senate candidates.

Davis said he spent about $3.4 million of his own funds as the Democratic House of Representatives candidate for the state's 26th District in 2004 and 2006. His opponent, Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-Clarence, spent no personal funds in 2006.

Davis contended that the rule is unconstitutional because it limits his First Amendment rights by "enabling his opponent to raise more money and to use that money to finance speech that counteracts and thus diminishes the effectiveness of Davis' own speech," the decision noted.

In a 5-4 vote, Hon. Samuel Alito Jr. delivered the opinion with Chief Justice Hon. John Roberts and Hon. Antonin Scalia, Hon. Anthony Kennedy and Hon. Clarence Thomas concurring. The four dissenting justices agreed in part that Davis could appeal the lower court's ruling, but found that the Millionaire's Amendment is constitutional.

Alito, writing for the majority, said the cap on a candidate's use of personal funds "requires a candidate to choose between the First Amendment right to engage in unfettered political speech and subjection to discriminatory fundraising limitations."

"Many candidates who can afford to make large personal expenditures to support their campaigns may choose to do so despite (the amendment), but they must shoulder a special and potentially significant burden if they make that choice," Alito wrote.

In his dissent, Stevens wrote that "the Millionaire's Amendment represents a modest, sensible, and plainly constitutional attempt by Congress to minimize the advantages enjoyed by wealthy candidates vis-à-vis those who must rely on the support of others to fund their pursuit of public office."

Davis is currently running for the Democratic nomination in the 26th District, a region that extends from Amherst to Rochester's Eastern suburbs. He owns Akron-based I Squared R Element Co., which makes heating elements for electric furnaces. A longtime Republican who switched parties in 2003, he founded the Save Jobs Party.

Davis was not immediately available for comment.

James Campbell, a University at Buffalo political-science professor, said the disparity the court was asked to address is "easily fixable" with legislative action.

"You could simply liberalize the contribution limits on both sides at the same time ... once the trigger level has been met," he said.