DAVIS v. FEC

Legal Principle at Issue

Does the Millionaire's Amendment to the 2002 campaign finance law, which raises the contribution limit for those running against a self-financed candidate, violate free speech clause of the First Amendment and the equal protection principle of the Fifth Amendment?

Action

Reversed and remanded. Petitioning party received a favorable disposition.

Facts/Syllabus

Federal-law limits on the amount of contributions a House of Representatives candidate and his authorized committee may receive from an individual, and the amount his party may devote to coordinated campaign expenditures. However, part of the so-called “Millionaire’s Amendment" to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) fundamentally altered this scheme when, as a result of a candidate’s expenditure of personal funds, the “opposition personal funds amount” (OPFA) exceeds $350,000. The OPFA is a statistic comparing competing candidates’ personal expenditures and taking account of certain other fundraising. When a “self-financing” candidate’s personal expenditure causes the OPFA to pass $350,000, a new, asymmetrical regulatory scheme comes into play. Self-financing candidates remained subject to the normal limitations, but “non-self-financing” candidate may receive individual contributions at treble the normal limit from individuals who have reached the normal limit on aggregate contributions, and may accept coordinated party expenditures without limit. 

Appellant Jack Davis, a candidate for a House seat in 2004 and 2006 who lost both times to the incumbent, notified the FEC for the 2006 election, in compliance with the BCRA, that he intended to spend $1 million in personal funds. After the FEC informed him it had reason to believe he had violated Section 319 the BCRA by failing to report personal expenditures during the 2004 campaign, he filed this suit for a declaration that Section 319 of the BCRA is unconstitutional and an injunction preventing the FEC from enforcing the section during the 2006 election. The District Court concluded that Davis had standing, but rejected his claims on the merits and granted the FEC summary judgment.