# Davis v. FEC (June 26, 2008) **Citation:** 554 U.S. 724 (2008) **Vote:** 5-4 **Decided:** June 26, 2008 **Statute challenged:** [[Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act]] "Millionaire's Amendment" *Davis v. FEC* struck down the [[Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act]] "Millionaire's Amendment" — the asymmetric contribution-limit adjustment under which a candidate whose opponent self-funded above a statutory threshold could receive larger individual contributions than the standard cap permitted. The Court held the asymmetric limit violated the [[First Amendment]]. The plaintiff was Jack Davis, a self-funding Democratic candidate for a New York House seat. Davis had spent more than $1.2 million of his own money on his 2004 and 2006 campaigns; under the Millionaire's Amendment, his Republican opponents were therefore permitted to accept individual contributions up to three times the standard limit. Davis argued (and the Court agreed, with [[Justice Alito]] writing for the 5-4 majority) that this asymmetric treatment imposed an unconstitutional burden on his self-funding speech: he could spend his own money, but doing so triggered a benefit to his opponents. ## The Doctrinal Move *Davis* established the principle that **the First Amendment prohibits Congress from creating campaign-finance regimes that respond to one candidate's spending with regulatory adjustments favoring opposing candidates**. The reasoning had implications beyond the Millionaire's Amendment itself — most importantly for **public-financing systems that adjust matching-fund amounts based on opponent spending**. The 2011 case *[[Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett]]* (564 U.S. 721) extended *Davis* to strike down Arizona's "matching funds" mechanism in its public-financing system. The combined effect is that public-financing systems that respond to opponent spending — the natural design feature for making public financing competitive against self-funded or independently-funded candidates — are constitutionally disabled. ## Significance for the KB *Davis v. FEC* is one of the **stepping-stone cases** in the Roberts Court's BCRA dismantling. The decision came: - After [[FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life]] (2007) had narrowed BCRA's electioneering-communications provision - Before [[Citizens United v. FEC]] (2010) struck down BCRA's corporate-independent-expenditure provision - Before *McCutcheon v. FEC* (2014) struck down aggregate contribution limits The pattern across these cases is consistent: a Republican-appointee majority (in *Davis*, Roberts/Scalia/Kennedy/Thomas/Alito) striking down BCRA provisions on First Amendment grounds, with Democratic-appointee dissents (in *Davis*, Stevens/Souter/Ginsburg/Breyer). *Davis* is the case in this sequence that most directly affects the **structural competitiveness of public-financing systems against the self-funding and independent-expenditure systems that [[Buckley v. Valeo]] had protected**. ## See Also - [[Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act]] — the statute partially struck - [[Buckley v. Valeo]] — the 1976 doctrinal foundation (whose self-funding protection *Davis* extended) - [[McConnell v. FEC]] — the 2003 case that had upheld other BCRA provisions - [[FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life]] — the 2007 precursor in the BCRA-dismantling sequence - [[Citizens United v. FEC]] — the 2010 dismantling of BCRA corporate-spending restrictions - [[McCutcheon v. FEC]] — the 2014 dismantling of aggregate contribution limits - [[Federal Election Commission]] — the named defendant - [[Campaign Finance Timeline]] — full chronological view - [[Campaign Finance]] — Foundations hub