Davis v. Federal Election Commission

554 U.S. 724 (2008)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Federal law limits the amount of money that a candidate for the House of Representatives and the candidate’s authorized committee may receive from an individual, as well as the amount that the candidate’s party may devote to coordinated campaign expenditures. Section 319(a) alters this scheme when, as a result of a candidate’s expenditure of personal funds, the “opposition personal funds amount” (OPFA) exceeds $350,000. When a candidate’s expenditure of personal funds causes the OPFA to pass the $350,000 mark (for convenience, such candidates will be referred to as “self-financing”), a new, asymmetrical regulatory scheme comes into play. The self-financing candidate remains subject to the limitations noted above, but the candidate’s opponent (the “non-self-financing” candidate) may receive individual contributions at treble the normal limit (e.g., $6,900 rather than the current $2,300), even from individuals who have reached the normal aggregate contributions cap, and may accept coordinated party expenditures without limit. In order to calculate the OPFA, certain information is needed about the self-financing candidate’s campaign assets and personal expenditures. Section 319(b) thus requires self-financing candidates to make disclosures about future intent or actual crossing the $350,000 threshold and thereafter in $10,000 increments. D was the Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives in 2004 and 2006. In both elections, he lost to the incumbent. D discloses having spent $1.2 million, principally his own funds, on his 2004 campaign. D reports spending $2.3 million in 2006, all but $126,000 of which came from personal funds. His opponent in 2006 spent no personal funds. Indeed, although the OPFA calculation provided the opportunity for D's opponent to raise nearly $1.5 million under §319(a)’s asymmetrical limits, D's opponent adhered to the normal contribution limits. D filed suit against D, requesting that §319 be declared unconstitutional and that D be enjoined from enforcing it during the 2006 election. D got a summary judgment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.