SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT DAVIS V. FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION 1
SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT DAVIS V. FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION
Royal P McHenry
Helm School of Law/Government-Liberty University
D/S: Royal Porter McHenry #32751160
I have no conflict of interest Royal
Porter McHenry.
SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT DAVIS V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 2
Email: rmchenry@liberty.edu
Maurer, W. R., & Keller, T. D. Davis v. FEC and the Constitutionality of “Clean Elections”
Systems Commission (2008): Constitutional Right to Ensure Campaign Finance Advantage. Rich.
JL & Pub. Int., 12, 77.https://www.oyez. org
Introduction
We examine the issue raised by Davis v Federal Election Commission (FEC) in regards to
the first amendment of the U. S. Constitutions that states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances (U. S. Const. amend. 1).
The Justices decision resolve around how H.R.2356 (2002) that expressed the limitation
or expenditures would bracket candidate’s ability to contest an adversarial contentions in
campaigns for public offices violate the First Amendment. In addition to this likelihood of
disproportionate account violate the Equal Protection principle implicit in the Fifth Amendment.
The district court rejected both of these claims, stating that the law did not implicate
the First Amendment because it did not impede Davis' ability to spend money in support
of his message, noting that it actually led to a higher level of speech in the race overall.
The district court similarly rejected Davis' Fifth Amendment claim, reasoning that
although Davis may have been held to higher reporting standards than his opponent, his
disproportionate wealth meant that the two candidates were not similarly situated and,
therefore, the Equal Protection Clause did not apply. The campaign nuance law allows
direct appeal to the Court, which will consider whether Davis has standing to bring the
First Amendment claim before deciding the case on the merits (Davis v REC 2008).
Question of Law
“Does the Millionaire's Amendment to the 2002 campaign financed law, which raises the
contribution limit for those running against a self- financed candidate, violate free speech clause
SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT DAVIS V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 3
of the First Amendment and the equal protection principle of the Fifth Amendment” ( Davis v
FEC 2008 p 1)?
Jurisdiction
First order of review is jurisdiction. The Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction by way of
the writ of certiorari from the appellant district court filed by appellant Jack Davis. The Justices
agreed that Davis had standing, however, Justice Samuel Alito gave a clear vision the decision
had no precedence and was in hope to establish grounds for future candidates, a landmark of
constitutional law addressing inequality of financial claims for different contribution limits for
candidates competing against one another are not constitutional issue but felt the need to
implement limited ability of congress. However the Justices decided the assertion of the
inequality claim pursuant to the fifth amendment of the U. S. Constitution were invalid and the
Millionaires Amendment in violation of the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court identifies the core principles of liberty (The law) Davis
challenges of Section 319 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 created as the
Millionaires Amendment. Appealed from the District court that found “Congress enacted
section 319 to achieve equity between congressional candidates utilizing personal funds for
their campaigns and candidates relying mainly on contributed funds” (Davis v F. E. C.
2002 p 62). The implementation of the House of Representatives or Senate self-funding
Candidates exceed $350,000 in personal campaign expenditures, sets several standards:
“1) Contributions from donors at triple the statutory limit;
2) Contributions from donors who have reached their statutory limit for aggregate
Campaign donations; and
3) Coordinated expenditures from party committees in excess of the statutory limit. To
effectuate application of section 319, the statute also imposes significant notification
and disclosure obligations upon self- financed candidates” (Davis v FEC p 62 &
H.R.2356).
The question of equilibrium for Davis appeared to be :
The OPFA included both personal funds and other fundraising. Once the personally
financed candidate went past the $350,000 limit, the non-self-financing candidate
was permitted to receive individual contributions at treble the normal limit,
SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT DAVIS V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 4
including from individuals who reached the aggregate contributions cap, and was
permitted to accept coordinated party expenditures without limit (Davis v FEC p 62).
“The three-judge district court erred in finding that Congress’s attempt to
equalize a potential imbalance in resources between congressional candidates
violates neither the First Amendment to the United States Constitution nor the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment” ( Davis v FEC p 61).
The importance of that principle pursuant to the US Constitution The
U. S. Constitutional 1st amendment states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances” (U.S. Const. 1st amend p 1).
The U. S. Constitutional 5th amendment states in pertinent part:
“Nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy
of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”
(U.S. Const. 5th amend. p 1).
Bastiat believed that “all human beings possessed the God-given, natural rights of
individuality, liberty, property and these three gifts from God precede all human legislation”
(Bastiat, 2024 p 3). However, Bastiat compositions in the late 1840s demonstrates how the law
used an instrument of legal plunder not protecting individual rights. The law deprive citizens
from rights of benefit for the governmental justification.
Provide your evaluation of that principle, idea, or precedent
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble” (U.S. Const. 1st amend p 1). The very decision of congress to
enactment of Section 319 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 known as the
Millionaires Amendment requires future judicial review. Davis’s concerns is predicated on both
the 1st amendment in part “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT DAVIS V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 5
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or
the right of the people peaceably to assembly…” and the 5th …nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law;…” The Justices has conformed to the fact Congress
enactment of the Millionaire Amendment infringes on the constitutional provision and there
has never been any decision made as a precedence to the contrary in addition to reserving,
“make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assembly” was deeply of concern with government and their public officials decrees. Biblical
Enlightenment
Consequently, our modern interpretation of government and the monarch government
has develop to the point of new eras in new land and multi-culture on religious bases.
All has found the common denominator to be the government and the Supreme law of
the land the U. S. Constitution. “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the
Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Corinthian 3:17). This verse emphasizes the Holy Spirit, is
the Lord, whom brings freedom to those who have faith in him. This freedom is
liberation from the bondage of sin and the law, allowing believers to live in accordance
with God's will. Spirit (2 Corinthian 3:17). “Our ultimate freedom is found in belonging
to Christ” (Galatians 5:1; 2 Corinthians 3:17). “Sin brings bondage” (Romans 7:14), “but
the one who belongs to Christ is spiritually free” (Romans 8:2). “Speaking the truth in
love is a biblical mandate” (Ephesians 4:15).
Therefore, any law that suppresses a person’s right to speak truth is working against
God’s command. Freedom of speech does not guarantee that truth is told, but it does permit
truth to be told.
No matter, who’s our countries leaders, God will always have the final decision. In this
matter of Davis v FEC we observe the first amendment effects on developing laws by Congress
that infringes on our natural inheritance may come under close scrutiny.
SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT DAVIS V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 6
Conclusion
“Because Section 319(a)'s asymmetrical contribution regime imposes a significant
burden on First Amendment rights that is not justified by a compelling state interest that cannot
withstand First Amendment scrutiny” ( Davis v FEC p 1). It is my opinion the courts omission of
statement should have been the common sense rule of law. If a self-financing candidate fund
their of platform, then section 319 (b) requires them to give an account of his personal funds
and allow the opposing party to receive funding for their campaign without any explanation and
accountability of the legality as to where their donation are being allocated aborts the 5th
amend.
(1). “Trump Ordered to Pay Eight Separate Charities $250,000 each $1.8 Million in Trump
Foundation Bank Account Disbursed Among Charities” (James 2019 p 1).
(2) “Date September 23, 1952, When Richard Nixon was the running mate of Republican
presidential candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952, he was accused of accepting
$18,235 in illegal campaign contributions damaging eight different charities for illegally
misusing charitable funds” (Shaffer, Heather L. (2022 p 1).
The scales of justice illustrates a dismissal of the equal protection as well as limited the
power of congress in light of federal judicial review from a constitutional interest.
Judgement:
By way of Certiorari. The U. S. Supreme Court GRANTED 1/11/2008
SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT DAVIS V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 7
Reference
H.R.2356 - Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 https://www.congress.gov › bill ›
Landa, W. C. (2008). Davis v. Federal Election Commission: Constitutional Right to Ensure
Campaign Finance Advantage. Rich. JL & Pub. Int., 12, 77.
James Letitia (2019 Jan. 10). NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James Trump pats
out millions ordered by court https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2019/donald-j-trump pays-
court-ordered-2-million-illegally-using-trump-foundation
Shaffer, Heather L. (2022) Richard Nixon illegal campaign funds
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/richard-nixon-denies-taking-
illegalcampaign-contributions
U. S. Constitution Amendment 1 https://constitution.congress.gov/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
