The millionaire amendment's day is past

Gratefully.

Today, the SCOTUS rules against the millionaire amendment in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. The amendment basically set limits on self-financing by wealthy folks running for office. It has the effect of stacking the deck against challengers in favor on incumbents. I didn't read the full opinion (only some snipits at the Club for Growth), but I really liked this part of the argument:

The argument that a candidate’s speech may be restricted in order to “level electoral opportunities” has ominous implications because it would permit Congress to arrogate the voters’ authority to evaluate the strengths of candidates competing for office.

Different candidates have different strengths. Some are wealthy; others have wealthy supporters who are willing to make large contributions. Some are celebrities; some have the benefit of a well-known family name. Leveling electoral opportunities means making and implementing judgments about which strengths should be permitted to contribute to the outcome of an election. The Constitution, however, confers upon voters, not Congress, the power to choose the Members of the House of Representatives, Art. I, §2, and it is a dangerous business for Congress to use the election laws to influence the voters’ choices.

I very much agree with the decision. I think all of these campaign finance spending limits do nothing more than limit political speech. As David Keating at the Club laments,

The case was decided 5-4, and it is very depressing to read the dissent. Four justices endorsed the idea that Congress could impose spending limits on campaigns. This wasn't even raised in the briefs by any of the parties in the case as far as I know.

It shows that the First Amendment is hanging by a thread.

Scary.

UPDATE: I realize I was wrong on the rules. The amendment allows the opponent of the millionaire to raise up to three times the per-person contribution limit.