The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to one of the most well-known provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law in a coming session from a Democratic congressional candidate who says the act violates his constitutional rights. Wealthy businessman Jack Davis, who lost a second challenge to New York Republican Tom Reynolds in 2006, is suing the Federal Election Commission over the so-called "Millionaire's Amendment," which allows opponents of candidates who spent heavily of their own money to raise additional funds.

The provision, tripped when a candidate for Congress spends more than $350,000 of their own money, allows opponents to raise up to $6,900 from each contributor, three times the normal $2,300 per donor allowed under normal campaign finance rules. Initially created to avoid the perception that wealthy candidates can buy a seat in Congress, Davis argues the measure violates his First Amendment rights and, due to additional reporting requirements, his Fifth Amendment rights by forcing him to reveal campaign strategy, the Washington Post writes today.

A panel of judges on the District Court level found in favor of the Federal Election Commission, ruling that the provision does not actually place limits on how much Davis or any other candidate can spend on his own race. Davis spent $1.25 million of his own money in 2004, losing to Reynolds by a 56%-44% margin, and almost double that in 2006, when Davis lost by a smaller 52%-48% margin. He has announced that he will run again this year, as Reynolds is retiring, though national Democrats clearly favor other candidates in the state's September primary.

The millionaire's amendment followed a rash of candidates in the last decade who have spent truckloads of their own money trying to win Senate and House seats. Few, especially on the Senate level, have been successful; only Senator Maria Cantwell, of Washington State, and New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, who won a Senate seat in 2000, the same year as Cantwell, stand out as having spent much of their own money for a win. In 2006, self-funders Ned Lamont in Connecticut, Jim Pederson in Arizona and Pete Ricketts in Nebraska all lost their bids, while wealthy candidates Pete Coors, in Colorado, and New Jersey's Doug Forrester also lost after spending heavily out of their own pocket.

The $350,000 limit has been tripped a total of 110 times, the Post reports Solicitor General Paul Clement saying. And while Davis argues that the main effect of the law has been to shut down challengers like himself, the fact is that just six incumbents have been among those cases.

The Supreme Court has ruled several times in recent years on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, at times upholding large portions of the law and at others loosening some requirements. This case, Davis v. Federal Elections Commission, will be the first time Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito are given a say on the matter. Regardless of the outcome, which likely won't be known until after the 2008 elections are held, Davis will trip the amendment again this year; he has pledged to spend $3 million, more than in either of his previous two attempts, to win the open seat in upstate New York.