The Supreme Court has agreed to hold an appeal hearing in a challenge to the Millionaire's Amendment.  Essentially, the issue is whether or not a candidate with less personal finances should be held to the same standard of outside contributions as a far wealthier individual.

The provisions, which increase contribution limits by at least 300 percent for candidates facing a self-financed opponent, are being challenged by Jack Davis, a former Democratic congressional candidate in New York's 26th district.

In court filings, Davis argues that the Millionaire's Amendment does not limit "the corrupting influence of campaign contributors" and instead, "serves to protect well-financed incumbents who wrote the statute."

Whichever side you tend to stick to, here's the simple fact of the matter.  There are two principles that need to be balanced: less influence by the government of the day on who will win an election, and the strong national and global need to prevent the presidency from being purchased.

The problem with some regulation is that it makes little sense when done in a half-assed way, and is oppressive when executed fully. 


Sphere: Related Content

Seed Newsvine