Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On the Supreme Court’s Decision on the “Millionaire’s Amendment” Davis v. FEC Download this audio June 26, 2008 “The Supreme Court decision today on the millionaire’s amendment has no impact on the central component of McCain-Feingold, which is the soft money ban. That soft money ban, which the Supreme Court has upheld, remains intact. It has revolutionized political fundraising in this country. I opposed the millionaire’s amendment in its initial form and I never believed it was a core component of campaign finance reform.” Fact Sheet on “The Millionaire’s Amendment” During the seven-year effort to pass the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as McCain-Feingold, Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold focused on banning “soft money,” the large, unregulated donations to political parties from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals. In December 2003, in McConnell v. FEC, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law, other than two minor provisions. Domenici-Durbin-DeWine “Millionaire’s Amendment” During the Senate’s consideration of the McCain-Feingold bill, on March 20, 2001, the Senate voted 70-30 to adopt an amendment, offered by Senators Pete Domenici (R-NM), Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Mike DeWine (R-OH), to raise the contribution limits for Senate candidates running against wealthy, self-financed opponents. Senators McCain and Feingold originally opposed the amendment because it allowed candidates who faced a wealthy opponent to raise unlimited funds from their contributors under increased limits. It also applied the same threshold for personal spending in every state, rather than recognizing that a self-financed candidate spending $500,000 on a race in, say, Vermont or Maine is a lot different than one spending $500,000 in New York or California. But after these issues were addressed, both Senators Feingold and McCain voted for the amendment. Later in the legislative process, the House added a millionaire’s amendment for House races. During debate on the amendment in the Senate, Senator Feingold said, “I am not happy with the idea that we are raising individual limits in this way. I believe this sets a dangerous precedent both for the future of this debate and for future debates, but the amendment is much improved, and in the spirit of compromise, I intend to support it. However, this is not an amendment that I believe is essential to reform.” Other Rulings on McCain-Feingold Other rulings on McCain-Feingold have not affected the ban on “soft money” contributions to political parties that is the heart of the legislation. In June 2007, the Supreme Court decided in the case FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life that the provision of BCRA authored by Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Jim Jeffords (I-VT), prohibiting corporations and unions from spending their treasury money on ads that mention federal candidates 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election, was unconstitutional in certain circumstances. Again, this did not affect the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in McConnell v. FEC, which upheld the central provision of McCain-Feingold.

# # #