26th
It’s an odd nation we live in where there is a right to own a handgun “for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home,” yet have no fundamental right to education - a predicate to democratic action. Then again, maybe we need the right to own guns precisely because we do not have a right to education. See Heller and Rodriguez.
In a less heralded 5-4 decision today, the Court struck down the so-called “millionaire’s amendment,” as a violation of the First Amendment. The campaign finance rule, which was challenged by millionaire Jack Davis, perennial sore-loser of NY congressional seats, allowed candidates greater public campaign contributions when their wealthy opponents spent lots of their own money. Justice Alito writes, “Leveling electoral opportunities means making and implementing judgments about which strengths and weaknesses should be permitted to contribute to the outcome of an election.” It is hard to see what burden this law put on speech when it did nothing to actually limit a candidate’s ability to use her own money. There are, presumably, many tactical decisions that persons running for Congress have to make in determining how much of their own money they wish to spend on their run. And isn’t public financing itself just the sort of leveling decision that Justice Alito is talking about? Having spent nearly $4 million of his own money on multiple failed campaigns for Congress, maybe Mr. Davis was not as good a candidate as his opponent. We’ll soon find out, as he is running again. This ruling could also potentially be after death-knell death knell for public campaign fiancing (see Obama’s decision to opt out).
In sum: Luckily, now we can buy whatever we want in America, including elections and guns.
“Isn’t public financing itself just the sort of leveling decision that Justice Alito is talking about?” That is the question.
