The U.S. Supreme Court today struck down the so-called Millionaire’s Amendment that tripled contribution limits for candidates whose opponents dug deep into their own pockets to fund their campaigns.
In a 5-4 decision, the high court ruled that the law violated the First Amendment because it gave a fundraising advantage to opponents of those who used personal funds to finance campaign speech, the Associated Press reported.
In this year’s primaries in
That tripled contribution limits for their opponents to $6,900 for the primary.
Teague won his race, but Wiviott and Dunn went on to lose to opponents who were able to boost their fundraising because of the increased contribution limits. Wiviott and Dunn could not be immediately reached for comment.
Ben R. Luján, who won the 3rd District Democratic primary, did take advantage of the increased contribution limits, but that wasn’t the reason he won, campaign spokesman Mark Nicastre said.
“Commissioner Luján has a proven record of standing up for
“Even with the Millionaire’s Amendment, Commissioner Luján was outspent three-to-one by his main challenger (Wiviott), but Commissioner Luján still won the six-person Democratic primary by 17 percent because of his record of expanding renewable-energy development, creating regional solutions to global warming and standing up to corporations that ripped off the people of New Mexico,” Nicastre said.
A spokesman for Ed Tinsley, who defeated Dunn in the 2nd District GOP primary, could not be immediately reached for comment.
The 6-year-old law would be constitutional if it raised contribution limits for the wealthy candidates in addition to their opponents, Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion he authored.