By Bart Jansen, CQ Staff

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, on Thursday overturned a key section of campaign finance law that sought to level the playing field for congressional candidates facing wealthy, self-funding opponents.

The provision nullified by the high court allows congressional candidates to collect more than the normal contributions per donor when they face wealthy opponents who pour hundreds of thousands of their own dollars into a race.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. , the court’s newest member and one of two justices appointed by President Bush, wrote the decision that rejected the so-called millionaire’s amendment in the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (PL 107-155). He said the provision was “at war” with contribution limits set in previous cases.

“While BCRA does not impose a cap on a candidate’s expenditure of personal funds, it imposes an unprecedented penalty on any candidate who robustly exercises that First Amendment right, requiring him to choose between the right to engage in unfettered political speech and subjection to discriminatory fundraising limitations,” Alito wrote. “The burden is not justified by any governmental interest in eliminating corruption or the perception of corruption.”

The majority also attacked the provision’s strategy of raising contribution limits for challengers, an attempt by Congress to level the fundraising playing field.

“The argument that a candidate’s speech may be restricted in order to ‘level electoral opportunities’ has ominous implications because it would permit Congress to arrogate the voters’ authority to evaluate the strengths of candidates competing for office,” Alito wrote.

Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer , Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter . Ginsburg and Breyer wrote an additional dissent.

Stevens wrote that because the law did not burden the self-funding candidate’s freedom to speak, it did not violate the First Amendment. Stevens called the millionaire’s amendment “a modest, sensible, and plainly constitutional attempt by Congress to minimize the advantages enjoyed by wealthy candidates vis-a-vis those who must rely on the support of others to fund their pursuit of public office.”

The majority overturned both the contribution limits for opponents of affluent candidates and a requirement that millionaires report every $10,000 expenditure within 24 hours. But the dissenting justices argued that neither provision limited speech.

“The Millionaire’s Amendment quiets no speech at all,” Stevens wrote. “On the contrary, it does no more than assist the opponent of a self-funding candidate in his attempts to make his voice heard; this amplification in no way mutes the voice of the millionaire, who remains able to speak as loud and as long as he likes in support of his campaign.”

At least 24 House candidates have triggered the millionaires’ amendment this cycle. Of those, 10 remain active — while others either lost a primary or dropped out.

In the Senate, at least four candidates had triggered the amendment by April, two of whom are still active.

Campaign watchdog groups lamented the decision, saying it continues the court’s trend under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. of chipping away at the 2002 campaign finance law.