Supreme Court to hear campaign finance case

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed Friday to review a campaign finance law dubbed the millionaire's amendment, which allows candidates to accept larger contributions when their opponents spend heavily from their personal fortunes.

The measure, part of the 2002 campaign finance law, is meant to help candidates facing wealthy opponents stay financially competitive. Jack Davis, the unsuccessful congressional candidate who is challenging the law, called it a way to "protect well-financed incumbents who wrote the statute."

Once a self-financed candidate's spending hits certain thresholds, a rival relying on fundraising can collect increasingly higher amounts from donors to catch up.

Jack Davis is a Democrat who narrowly lost a congressional race in New York last year. He spent more than $2.2 million of his own money in 2006. He lost to incumbent Republican Rep. Thomas Reynolds, 51 percent to 49 percent.

Reynolds did not receive increased contributions after Davis reported exceeding the threshold, $350,000 in House races, Solicitor General Paul Clement said in urging the court to dismiss Davis' case.

Davis said the law violates his First Amendment rights because it treats personal expenditures as suspect and encourages significant increases in contributed funds to his opponent.

A three-judge court in Washington upheld the provision, saying Davis failed to show that his speech had been constrained by the millionaire's amendment. It "does not limit in any way the use of a candidate's personal wealth in his run for office," the court said.