Matters of Opinion

Jack Davis has lost two races for a Western New York seat in Congress. But even if he loses again this year, he may have already had more impact on American political life than most people who actually get elected. His legal challenge to the so-called Millionaire's Amendment to the McCain-Feingold campaign  finance law carried the day last week before the U.S. Supreme Court. That means that, if Davis [right] goes through with his promise to spend $3 million of his own money in his quest for the seat being vacated by Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds, the law that would have allowed his rivals to exceed fundraising limits, as a way of catching up on fundraising, will not be in force.

Today's Buffalo News editorial is upset, but not surprised, by that:
Given the history of campaign finance litigation, the ruling can’t be seen as unexpected, particularly given the activist nature of the John Roberts court. The ruling traces back to 1976, when the court in Buckley v. Valeo equated money spent on political campaigns with free speech. It was a ridiculous ruling on its face. To paraphrase the late television commentator David Brinkley, money is money; speech is speech. The court might have more appropriately equated money with a megaphone. Money may allow more people to hear your speech, but the Constitution makes no promises on how loudly anyone can speak or how many people get to hear what you have to say.

Columnist George F. Will, on the other hand, used the ruling to make another of his heartfelt points against campaign finance restrictions:
The McCain-Feingold law abridging freedom of political speech — it restricts the quantity, timing and content of such speech — included a provision, the Millionaires’ Amendment, that mocked the law’s veneer of disinterested moralizing about “corruption.” The provision unmasked the law’s constitutional recklessness and its primary purpose, which is protection of incumbents.

Elsewhere:
* The Weekly Standard is happy with the ruling: This was a significant decision reaffirming First Amendment principles and rejecting a new and dangerous justification for campaign restrictions.
* The New York Times was not: The ruling is conservative judicial activism of the first order. Congress passed the millionaire’s amendment to “level electoral opportunities for candidates of different personal wealth.” But the court baldly asserted that this is not “a legitimate government objective.”
* The Tonawanda News makes the point that the final choice is still up to the voters: The only people qualified to decide whose money is dirtier, that of the career politician or the self-made millionaire, are the American people.

And how will we get the information we need to decide? Try Project Vote Smart.

--George Pyle/Editorial Writer