Adam B has the details of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the millionaire's amendment, which raised contribution limits to candidates facing self-funding opponents.
In essence, the court just ruled that even though a millionaire can spend what he or she wants to say what he or she wants, the fact that his or her opponent gets to raise additional money is an infringement on the millionaire's free speech rights.
The problem is that, as the dissent says here, no one is stifling the millionaires' speech. They can still spend whatever they want to say whatever they want. This just enhances their opponents' speech.
The notion that enhancing your opponents' speech is infringing on your own is a brand new level of crazy, and I say that as someone who essentially agrees with Buckley that money equals speech. (Try to get your message out to a wide audience without spending a dime.)
Apparently, to conservatives, money only equals speech when it's rich people's money.
There is a quick and easy way to fix this -- pass a new law that would raise the contribution limits to both candidates, the millionaire included. If the Daddy Warbucks candidate could raise money, he or she wouldn't have to self-fund, so in essence, this would mostly help the challenger.
If you're wondering why Congress would be motivated to do this, keep this in mind -- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is facing a self-funding Democratic gazillionaire in Bruce Lunsford. Lunsford spent about $2.12 million of his own money during the primary, and given his past free-spending ways ($14 million through two unsuccessful gubernatorial elections), is likely to spend millions more in the general election.
Of course, McConnell currently has the big advantage (a $7 million gap as of the last pre-primary report in April). But Lunsford can theoretically close that gap with a single check. So perhaps that'll get him to sign on to fixing what is, in essence, the most ridiculous Supreme Court decision I've seen in a long, long time.
