In its second huge decision of the day and one that will probably get overlooked given the 2nd Amendment ruling, the US Supreme Court overturned a provision of McCain-Feingold known as the "Millionaire’s Amendment" which allowed certain candidates to solicit contributions over the current limits if their opponent self-finances their campaign.
[The millionaire’s amendment] imposes "an unprecedented penalty on any candidate who robustly
exercises" his or her First Amendment right to self-finance a campaign.
This ruling is a further affirmation of the ideal that money is
protected political speech. Taken to a logical extension, shouldn’t the
same rules then apply to state laws regarding rescue funds in publicly
If a candidate for a publicly financed office decides to spend his or her own money in the race, why then, should the other candidate be allowed rescue funds? The scheme of rescue funds seems to run contradictory to this decision.