Millionaires get a free pass; will the grassroots fight back?
Kari Chisholm
Late last week, we talked a lot about the Supreme Court's ruling on gun rights -- but not at all about another ruling they made on the same day. A ruling that will have far-reaching consequences in this year's elections, right here in Oregon.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court invalidated a little known rule called the "Millionaire's Amendment." Here's how it used to work: Candidates for the U.S. House and Senate are limited to raising money in chunks of $2300 per-person, per-election. But under the Millionaire's Amendment, if your opponent spent a vast sum of money ($350,000 in a U.S. House race, varying amounts in Senate races), then your contribution limits would triple to $6900 per-person. (And in Senate races, a higher threshold sends the limit even higher.)
The reason for the Millionaire's Amendment is to discourage wealthy candidates from spending big buckets of their own money to buy a race. The most famous case of the Millionaire's Amendment was in 2004, when Barack Obama faced Blair Hull in the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate. Hull was carpetbombing Illinois with over $20 million in TV ads and would have sailed to victory - except that the Millionaire's Amendment allowed Obama to close the gap, even a little. (Obama raised $5.6 million, three million of which was from 480 donors who were able to go over the then-cap of $2000 per-person.)
But after Thursday's Supreme Court ruling in Davis v. FEC, the rule no longer exists. In short, a wealthy candidate can spend whatever they want - and the increased limits will never kick in. $2300 is the max, period.
So, why does this matter in Oregon in 2008?
Because in the two most high-profile federal races in Oregon, Democrats are running against millionaires capable of largely self-financing their campaigns.
Gordon Smith and Mike Erickson both have a history of dumping vast sums of money into their own campaigns. In 2006, Erickson spent $1.5 million of his own money in a losing effort against Congresswoman Darlene Hooley. And Gordon Smith has poured over $3 million into his Senate campaigns over his career.
The Millionaire's Amendment acted as a brake on that kind of behavior. It didn't eliminate it; and it didn't give the opponents of wealthy candidates a perfectly level playing-field -- but it did provide a disincentive.
And now it's gone.
Now that Mike Erickson and Gordon Smith have free reign to dump their personal wealth into their campaigns, there's only way for Kurt Schrader and Jeff Merkley to fight back: With your help.
Smith and Erickson may have fat bank accounts, but Jeff Merkley and Kurt Schrader have us. And yes, they'll get help from the DSCC and the DCCC, but grassroots support is what will carry the day.
Today's the end of the fundraising quarter - the first quarter after our primary election. Make a donation. Even if it's just $5 or $10 or $20. Put yourself on the record.
Regardless of the amount, join the cause - and fight back against Oregon's millionaire Republicans.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
9:55 a.m.
Jun 30, '08
Full disclosure: My company built JeffMerkley.com and KurtSchrader.com but I speak only for myself.
Jun 30, '08
The most famous case of the Millionaire's Amendment was in 2004, when Barack Obama faced Blair Hull in the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate.
And why was the millionaire's amendment enacted in the first place? Would it have anything to do with Jon Corzine spending over $62 million of his own money to buy a US Senate seat in New Jersey??
Also, just out of curiousity, what do you suppose Kurt Schrader's net worth is? Hint, the amendment would likely apply to him as well..... I'm all for Kurt for Congress (Erickson would be and is a disaster), but let's not paint him as a pauper who can't compete financially.
11:51 a.m.
Jun 30, '08
Kari,
Could Oregon create a luxury tax for candidates that loan or spend 10% or more of their total controbutions to their campaign? This money could be spread amung the other candidates for the race.
11:56 a.m.
Jun 30, '08
And why was the millionaire's amendment enacted in the first place?
Actually, it was sponsored by Senator Dick Durbin -- after Carol Moseley-Braun was defeated by Peter Fitzgerald, who did nothing but hide in his office, refuse to meet the public, and bombard the airwaves with negative ads.
Could Oregon create a luxury tax for candidates that loan or spend 10% or more of their total controbutions to their campaign?
Interesting idea. I doubt it, though, given the sweeping nature of the decision last week. The Millionaire's Amendment did nothing to limit anyone's speech -- merely gave disadvantaged candidates more money (i.e. "more speech") and even that the Supremes found unconstitutional.
Silly.
Jun 30, '08
First of all as far as my empathy meter works, millionaires are basically on the lowest possible setting. With that being said, I feel like the millionaire has an essential right to be able to spend his or her own money on a personal political campaign without restriction. The real issue here for me is the fact that the general public is capable of being duped by that money.
Which brings me to another issue? I don't watch commercials anymore so why should I spend money for a candidate to buy commercials that I won't ever see. I feel like my money would be better spent if I bought my neighbor a DVR so he could stop watching commercials as well. It could be like a movement. Tune off, dude.
Jun 30, '08
Let's make the $2300 limit apply to all contributors including the candidate. Or, better yet, publicly finance elections.
In the meantime I'll donate what I can to these two candidates and talk to my friends and relatives about it too.
Jun 30, '08
Publicly financed elections are a great idea. Why should some dirty rich $$Millionaire$$ spend their hard earned money getting elected. Let's let the taxpayers foot the bill.
Good idea.
..and While you're at it, let's setup some toll bridges and how about an Oregon Sales tax?
3:42 p.m.
Jun 30, '08
"why should I spend money for a candidate to buy commercials that I won't ever see."
So the commercials won't be paid for by Exxon, and--whether you watch them or not--the candidate will feel beholden to Exxon for buying his commercials.
Jun 30, '08
Let's make the $2300 limit apply to all contributors including the candidate.
A good idea that has, unfortunately, been disallowed by courts as an abridgment of free speech.
Jun 30, '08
Usually progressives like free speech but I guess the hatred of rich people means progressives shouldn't like free speech for rich people??? Wow, it is all so confusing to keep track of.
This latest decision follows a line from Buckley which was a decision handed down by one of the most liberal Supreme Courts. Buckley was decided in 1976 and it stands for the basic principle that money buys speech. If you believe in free speech then you can't limit the amount of speech that a person can buy.
There are plenty of wealthy liberals who benefit from this line of thinking so I'm not sure what the issue is.
If you don't support free speech because someone has more money than someone else then you really have a mess on your hands. What would you do if a well known movie star who didn't have much money ran against a rich person who didn't have any name recognition. Are you going to say that the rich person can't spend money to advertise while the well known person can coast on their pre-existing name recognition?
Jun 30, '08
randy,
It should not be so confusing. Courts allow limits to rights where there is a compelling reason. Yelling, "Fire" in a crowded theater is not protected because of the threat to public safety. Most progressives believe there is a compelling reason to control campaign contributions: the promotion of democratic, as opposed to plutocratic, governance. It has nothing to do with hating anyone.
Jun 30, '08
"Usually progressives like free speech but I guess the hatred of rich people means progressives shouldn't like free speech for rich people???"
There's nothing free about speech that's paid for.
That whole idea is ridiculous.
A very Orwellian way to frame the issue.
Jun 30, '08
Equating money to free speech is absurd in my view. Money is merely an amplifier of speech. Give me $500 million and I'll get my free speech out there. It seems for many if not most the highest values in this country are the accumulation of wealth and power and not much else matters most of the time. A pretty selfish attitude if you ask me.
Jul 1, '08
Technically, the rule still applies to Senate races, but everyone knows it will be struck down as soon as it comes before the court.
Jul 1, '08
"Could Oregon create a luxury tax for candidates that loan or spend 10% or more of their total contributions to their campaign?"
That would have disqualified Jeff Merkley for Senate.
Jul 2, '08
why are candidates allowed to give themselves more than $2300 at all? i first noticed this with hillary loaning herself vast sums. it didn't make sense that barack had to count on my five bucks (it'll be more soon) while the wealthier hillary could spend vast sums of her own money.
<h2>up until this race, the media was always obsessed with the dollars a candidate had in his or her war chest. a better figure by far would be the number of donors to their campaign. it would show the true amount of support a candidate has.</h2>