On December 4, the Federal Election Commission filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Davis v FEC. Here is a copy of the FEC brief.

In October 2007, Democratic U.S. House candidate Jack Davis had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his challenge to the part of the McCain-Feingold law called the “millionaires’ Amendment.” That law says if a candidate for Congress spends at least $350,000 of his own money on his own campaign, then his or her opponents may receive vastly greater contributions from individuals.

Davis is a Democrat who ran for Congress from New York in 2006 and who was narrowly defeated. Since Davis had contributed more than $350,000 to his own campaign, his Republican incumbent opponent has taken advantage of the “Millionaires” law to receive campaign contributions from individuals in excess of the normal limit. Davis had then challenged the law, but had lost in a 3-judge U.S. District Court. He argues that since the U.S. Supreme Court has said that the only permissible reason for campaign contributions limits is to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption, the Millionaires’ law cannot stand.

The FEC argues that Davis doesn’t have standing. It also defends the idea that campaign finance limits are also for the purpose of “equalizing resources.” Finally, the FEC cites many cases which upheld laws that hobble candidates who fund their own campaigns. However, all the cases the FEC mentions involve situations in which public funding is in place. There is no public funding for Congressional candidates, so that FEC argument is not very persuasive.