Posted on 09/24/2003 10:29:35 AM PDT by Pubbie
A provision in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law aimed at helping candidates compete against self-funding millionaires could help one of the bill's sponsors, Sen. Russ Feingold, in next year's Senate race.
The "millionaire's amendment" raises contribution limits for candidates whose opponents finance their own campaigns and outpace them in spending. Two of the three candidates who have filed in Wisconsin's GOP primary, Tim Michels and Russ Darrow, are millionaires.
The law could allow Feingold, D-Wis., hold off a barrage of funding if either of them wins the primary and challenges the senator next year.
Feingold campaign manager George Aldrich said his candidate isn't focused on the amendment.
"We truly haven't done an awful lot of analysis on it because we don't know if it's even going to be an issue for us," he said.
Another potential beneficiary of the provision is state Sen. Bob Welch, the other Republican candidate in the race, who is facing two wealthy opponents.
"I haven't even thought about that because we are concentrating on fund-raising ourselves and putting our team together," Welch said. He estimates he will raise $250,000 by the end of the next reporting period, Sept. 30.
Darrow, a well-known car dealer, said he will put some of his own money into the race. Michels, part-owner and vice president of Michels Corp., a utility construction company, is actively raising money but has not ruled out putting substantial amounts of his own cash into the race.
The millionaire's amendment, which looks like something a high school algebra teacher came up with, has a complicated set of triggers that vary by state.
The threshold is reached by multiplying $.04 by the voting age population of the state, then adding $150,000. In Wisconsin, that comes to $314,000, according to figures provided by the Federal Election Commission. (The number could change slightly next year to reflect new population figures.)
_When self-funding candidates double that amount - $628,000 - their opponents can triple their individual contribution limits from $2,000 to $6,000.
_If self-funding candidates quadruple the threshold ($1.26 million) their opponents can raise six times the limit, or $12,000.
_Finally, when self-funding candidates spend 10 times the limit ($3.14 million), opponents can raise six times the limit, plus receive unlimited party spending in coordination with the campaign.
But another complicated formula minimizes these benefits for non-millionaire candidates if they significantly out-raise their self-funding opponents in traditional fund-raising.
That could limit the benefit for Feingold, but it's too soon to say by how much. His campaign estimates that by the end of the month, he will have raised about $4.6 million since his last election.
The Michels campaign is analyzing the millionaire's amendment and trying to factor that into a decision on whether to self-fund, said campaign manager Cullen Sheehan.
"Our early success in raising money has pushed that discussion back," said Sheehan, who estimates the campaign will have raised $300,000 to $400,000 by the end of the month. "Our philosophy is that as long as the fund-raising is going well, we're not going to go down that (self-funding) route."
But Sheehan made it clear that Michels will spend his own money if necessary.
"If, for whatever reason, at some point in the campaign, fund-raising isn't going well, or we've hit a peak, he's willing to have the conversation about contributing his own money," Sheehan said. "We will not lose because of money."
Darrow said he wasn't sure what impact the amendment would have.
"The Supreme Court might have something to say about that," he said, referring to the court's review of the campaign finance law's constitutionality.
Ken Mayer, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said the millionaire's amendment will likely have a bigger role in the primary than the general election.
"An incumbent senator will have plenty of opportunities to raise as much money as he or she needs," Mayer said. "The language was designed to help challengers facing wealthy incumbents, or in open seats."
But he said it could help someone like Welch raise the extra money needed to be competitive against self-funding millionaires.
"Yer Honor, he needed a good butt-whoopin'."
As the Supreme Court clearly ruled in 1976 and repeatedly since, it is the First Amendment right of any candidate to spend his/her own money in his/her own campaign, without limit. Therefore the law seeks to penalize such candidates for exercising their constitutional rights. It is as offensive to the Constitution as hurting the Boy Scouts for exercizing their constitutional rights.
Congressman Billybob
John / Billybob
I have argued cases in Circuit Courts and in the highest court in Maryland. But I doubt I will ever get the opportunity now to argue before the Supreme Court. (Sigh.)
John / Billybob
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.