The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last month to strike down a law designed to level the playing field for non-wealthy political candidates could have a dramatic impact on other campaign-finance laws, the Washington Post believes.
In striking down the Millionaire’s Amendment, the court could threaten state public-financing systems and restrictions on corporate and union spending, the Post stated in a June 29 editorial.
In striking down the Millionaire’s Amendment, the court, with a five-justice majority, said increasing contribution limits for opponents of wealthy, self-financing candidates — but not increasing limits for the wealthy candidates — violated the wealthy candidates’ First Amendment right to political speech.
Most state public-financing systems are designed to level the playing field in the same manner as the now-defunct Millionaire’s Amendment. In
The Post speculated in the editorial that the high court’s ruling could spell doom for such public-financing systems.
In addition, the Post stated, the majority on the high court “appears increasingly intolerant of restrictions on corporate spending, which have traditionally been justified by the desire not to have candidates’ voices drowned by corporate speech.” Last month’s ruling, the Post stated, “pointedly cited” one justice’s dissent in a 1990 case upholding a
“The corporate and union spending limits are clearly on borrowed time,” election law expert Rick Hasen wrote following the court’s ruling, according to the Post.
“The future of campaign finance legislation looks awfully shaky in the hands of this court,” the Post editorial stated.