The Supreme Court heard arguments today in the "Millionaire's Amendment" case, a challenge to a provision in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that allows a candidate whose opponent spends large amounts of his or her own funds to accept contributions of up to three times the normal limit, currently $2,300. You might remember that this provision helped bring about the election of the likely keynote speaker at the Republican convention, Joe Lieberman, who was able to collect contributions of $12,600 ($6,300 for the primary and again for the general election) from lobbyists and Wall Street, because Ned Lamont, getting little help from the Democratic establishment spent some of his personal wealth. In Joe's honor, I have renamed this provision the "Lieberman Loophole."
The traditional campaign finance groups and their friends on the editorial pages have unsurprisingly weighed in in favor of the Lieberman Loophole, with a lot of words that basically come down to the view that all of McCain-Feingold is sacred writ and no part of it may be altered, and the simple-minded slogan that rich people shouldn't be able to buy an election.
The defense of the Lieberman Loophole as policy, as expressed in the amicus brief of the Brennan Center and other reform groups is that the higher contribution limit "expands, and does not restrict, the opportunities for speech in the political process." I should be all for that -- after all, I've argued that we should have a campaign finance system that is based on expanding voice rather than on limits, and I think that reducing corruption should not be the only rationale for campaign finance regulation or public financing. (The reason that self-financed candidates cannot be limited, in theory, is that there is no risk of corruption in paying for your own campaign. As they sometimes say, they are "too rich to be bought.")
