July 2, 2008 – 12:12 p.m.
Last week’s Supreme Court decision nullifying the “millionaire’s amendment’’ in federal campaign finance laws means renewed legal challenges to programs in at least eight states and two cities that provide more in public funds to candidates running against privately financed foes.
Legal experts on both sides of the issue say that the high court’s 5-4 ruling on June 26 means the non-federal laws are in jeopardy because, under the reasoning of the majority opinion written by Justice
James Bopp Jr., an Indiana lawyer who has repeatedly challenged campaign laws, said he would ask the Supreme Court to hear his attempt to dismantle a North Carolina program that provides public funding for judicial candidates and those seeking a few statewide offices. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the program in a ruling May 1.
“We definitely will be filing,” Bopp said. “We think the court should consider taking this up.”
At issue is the attempt by federal and state governments to balance the potentially corrupting influence of special-interest political contributions against the burden on candidates who can finance their own campaigns.
The millionaire’s amendment, a part of the McCain-Feingold 2002 campaign finance law, allowed a candidate facing a wealthy, self-funding opponent to collect triple the normal $2,300 per donor, per election, for a House race.
The state cases are different, involving laws that offer public funds to candidates who abide by certain limits.
Maine, Arizona, North Carolina, New Mexico, New Jersey and Connecticut have public finance programs that provide more when a candidate’s opponent spends more, according to Nick Nyhart, president of Public Campaign, which advocates for public financing of campaigns.
For a full version of this story and the latest coverage, please visit CQ Politics.