Send In the Tycoons

[groovedaddy]

Millionaires are everywhere this campaign season, having seen how effective it is to have an unlimited bank account when buying expensive airtime against a candidate who has to raise money every day. On Tuesday, a federal appeals court made it even easier for wealthy candidates to dominate politics in Connecticut, and a series of lawsuits in other states seemed designed to provoke a similar decision from the Supreme Court.

The Connecticut decision, by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, struck down the “trigger provision” of the state’s campaign finance system, which allowed extra public funds for candidates running against opponents who do not participate in the system and who spend more than the system’s limits. The more the rich candidate spends, the more public money his or her opponent gets. Though the playing field is hardly even, the law does give nonwealthy candidates a fighting chance to compete.

The appeals court found that the campaign finance system violated the First Amendment rights of wealthy candidates. Never mind that nothing in the system prohibited such candidates from speaking or spending all they want; the court said that by awarding additional funds to opponents, the system caused a self-financed candidate to “shoulder a special and potentially significant burden if she chooses to exercise her First Amendment right to spend personal funds on her campaign.”

The court based its reasoning on the Supreme Court’s deeply unfair 2008 decision to strike down the so-called millionaires’ amendment, which let Congressional candidates raise more money when running against opponents who pay for their own campaigns. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on state trigger provisions like Connecticut’s, but last month it went out of its way to intervene in the Arizona gubernatorial race, cutting off triggered funds to candidates who were expecting them. The direction of the court’s thinking, assuming it decides to rule in these cases, seems clear.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/opinion/14wed3.html?th&emc=th