The Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and specifically the Millionaire's Amendment, which lifts fundraising limits on a candidate when their opponent is spending large amounts of personal wealth. The amendment was constructed in reaction to the popular belief that wealthy candidates can more or less purchase a seat in elected office.

Photo by Flickr user .A.A.

The challenge doesn't appear to be a particularly strong one, at least to my admittedly non-legal eye. But there's another silver lining in this case: We've found that the Millionaire's Amendment may not be entirely necessary. The idea behind the clause is admirable and our findings are counterintuitive, but the data backs us up.

Provided that each candidate has enough resources to be competitive in a given district, one candidate spending vast amounts over this threshold has historically produced diminishing returns and very little results for his or her campaign. An analysis of the data from 1992 to 2006 suggests that the true equation is more nuanced than "more money = more votes".

The bad news is that several of the Justices appear to be using this case to vent other vendettas against campaign reform. Laura MacCleery has a great piece in The Nation. She outlines the hearings thus far, but also makes the connection between the aspect of the law and a more sweeping -- and alarming -- anti-reform sentiment, including suspicion of basic transparency efforts:

...The Justices grappled with the meat of the constitutional claims, discussing whether the state's interest in enhancing competition was legitimate.

Justice Ginsburg even raised concerns about the burdens from the additional disclosures required under the law, which require reports of each spending increment of $10,000 or more. Disclosure obligations, in this age of the Internet and electronic filing, are normally viewed as far less intrusive than contribution limits.

MacCleery says the conversation resembled a "chuckling old boys' club" of the wealthy:

Justice Scalia threw Davis's counsel a softball question concerning the state's interest: "Who is more incorruptible than the millionaire, right?" Andrew Herman, counsel for Davis, replied that millionaires are "the ultimate independent," and Scalia concurred, to laughter, noting that the wealthiest candidates among us are "the ultimate incorruptible."

No, Justice Scalia, we must disagree. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 58% of the Senate and 44% of the House can be considered millionaires. Yet the stomach-turning reports of explicit corruption (no one is incorruptible in prison) as well as institutionalized thievery from the American taxpayer do not convince us that the millionaire is any more incorruptible than the rest of us. Let's give the single mother working as a waitress a shot. Something tells me she has experience balancing a budget. Deborah L. Simpson was elected to state office in Maine under the state's public funding system.