Just one year after the Wisconsin Right to Life decision, the Supreme Court came across another dispute concerning the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The issue referred to section 319(b) of the legislation, called the ‘Millionaire‘s Amendment’, which imposed special exceptions to contribution limits made by certain candidates in federal elections. The law demanded special information before the electoral process from candidates who planned to spend more than $350,000 from their own funds, which, in turn, provided the possibility to their opponents of increasing campaign spending, by allowing them to raise the donation limits they could accept from individual contributors and their national political party. A millionaire, Jack Davis, a Republican turned Democrat, challenged the BCRA provision, arguing that it violated his rights provided by the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

The Supreme Court decided Davis v. F.E.C. on appeal in 2008. Five conservative Justices reached similar conclusions as to the scope of the freedom of speech of candidates in federal elections, stating that Davis’ financial status put him in an unequal position relative to his opponents in the congressional race. In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito declared that the First Amendment was created in order to promote the free exchange of opinions, with no regard to the material status of the speaker. For liberals on the Court, it was obvious that the ‘Millionaire's Amendment’ was implemented in order to protect the system from the uncontrolled flow of big money into the electoral process, and to pursue the idea of the equalization of chances to be heard by non-wealthy candidates. This was now held unconstitutional by the conservative majority on the Court.

MR. JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court…