Supreme Court campaign finance ruling could have major impact on U.S. Senate race

The Supreme Court: Getty Images PhotoLOUISVILLE -- Kentucky could be in for a spending bonanza in this year's U.S. Senate race after today's decision in the U.S. Supreme Court on a controversial campaign finance provision.

The "millionaire's amendment" is no more, after a 5-4 decision where the high court deemed that piece of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform package as unconstitutional.

The amendment previously allowed opponents of self-funding candidates to accept individual contributions beyond typical limits and benefit from increased party expenditures. In the majority opinion of the court released today, Associate Justice Samuel Alito called this provision "antithetical to the First Amendment."

The ruling will likely significantly affect Kentucky's U.S. Senate race, given the presence of a multi-millionaire on one side of the race more than willing to self-finance his bid.

Businessman Bruce Lunsford (D-Louisville) is most likely to reap the benefits of today's ruling. With personal wealth estimated between $33 million to $150 million, Lunsford has already shown he is capable of pumping personal cash into the race.

The Democratic candidate twice triggered the provisions of the millionaire's amendment during his successful primary run against Greg Fischer (D-Louisville), spending more than $2.1 million of his own money.

Now, contribution limits for his opponents will not be escalated upon these expenditures.

In the past, hitting certain thresholds allowed opponents to accept individual contributions beyond normal limits. In Kentucky, Senate candidates spending $559,000 on their own campaigns previously raised an opponent's limit to $6,900 per individual donor. Expenditures of $1,118,000 hiked their opponent's contribution limits to $13,800 per donor, while self-financers dropping $2,795,000 removed limits on the opposing party's coordinated expenditures.

With those provisions seemingly wiped out by today's ruling, Lunsford will now likely be at liberty to invest his resources in his campaign without fundraising repercussions.

At a press event earlier today, just after the decision came down, Lunsford hinted "there may be some interesting news" on the day with regard to fundraising, but declined to comment specifically as to the decision or its specifics.

McConnell, meanwhile, has a personal fortune of his own but nothing nearly as significant as his principal opponent. His wealth is estimated at between $2.2 and $8.4 million, as of 2006.

Instead of self-financing, the incumbent will likely rely on fundraising, though without the increased limits the campaign may once have expected.

As of the April 30 FEC filing, McConnell had more than $7 million in the bank for his re-election bid, though indications are he is not resting on his laurels in terms of fundraising. PolitickerKY.com reported earlier this week that McConnell attended a fundraiser for his campaign in New Jersey last weekend.

With regard to today's decision, McConnell had little to say on the impact on his race, but lauded the Court's opinion.

"The Supreme Court has appropriately upheld the First Amendment, and I applaud their decision," said McConnell in a statement.

Senator McConnell outrightly opposed the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation - of which the "millionaire's amendment" was a part - arguing its restrictions on campaign contributions constituted a violation of free speech.

Updated: The Washington Post notes the decision in the case currently only applies to candidates for the U.S. House - as the petitioner was a candidate for a House seat - but today's decision could be used as precedent for any lower-court challenge by a Senate candidate impacted by the millionaire’s amendment.