Millionaire's Amendment Costs Lautenberg Seven Figures

In New Jersey's Democratic primary this year, Sen. Frank Lautenberg easily defeated his challenger, state representative Rob Andrews. But the victory came at a personal cost — specifically, $1.4 million.

In a 6-0 decision yesterday, the Federal Election Commission ruled that a provision of the "Millionaire's Amendment," a 2002 federal law intended to even the playing field for political candidates facing wealthy opponents, prevented Lautenberg from repaying himself more than $250,000 of the $1.65 million he loaned to his primary campaign.

Lautenberg's lawyer, Perkins Coie's Marc Elias, argued that the restriction was unfair to Lautenberg and was invalidated when the Supreme Court struck down other provisions of the Millionaire's Amendment in June. (In that opinion, the Court found that allowing candidates facing wealthy, self-financed opponents to collect greater amounts from individual donors was unconstitutional.)

The FEC, however, found otherwise. The provisions of the law were severable, the commission ruled, leaving Lautenberg on the hook.

Newark's Star-Ledger has the rest of the story, including some sniping from Lautenberg's general election opponent, Dick Zimmer.

Comments

[Kevin]

It doesn't mean anything for Hillary and her campaign loans because the millionaire's amendment doesn't apply to presidential races.

[past 1L]

What does this mean for Hillary and her 11+million dollars?