McConnell's Million Positions on the Millionaire's Amendment

Mitch McConnell praised the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Millionaire's Amendment. In the past, however, McConnell has been all over the map on this issue. He strongly supported the amendment when it was adopted, then testified against it and challenged it in court. He said he shouldn't be allowed to take advantage of the amendment, then made plans to use it in this campaign. He said he never really opposed it, then he said he never really supported it. He voted for it, but thought it was unconstitutional. So, where does Mitch McConnell stand on the Millionaire's Amendment? There are a million guesses.

He Strongly Supported It...

McConnell said he looked forward to the passage of the Millionaire's Amendment. Speaking on the U.S. Senate floor, McConnell said, "we are finally getting an opportunity to address... one of the significant problems in our current campaign system" that makes it "harder for a nonwealthy candidate to compete, given the eroding contribution limit... I thank Senator Domenici for his important work... This is an important amendment. It will advance this debate in the proper direction... we look forward to its passage later in the day." [Sen. McConnell floor statement, 3/20/01]

McConnell said the Millionaire's Amendment was needed because "one of the big problems is millionaires trying to buy public office." During a press conference in March 2001, McConnell said, "I think [the Millionaire's Amendment] was a very significant amendment, because if you look out at the real problems we have in American politics today... is millionaires trying to buy public office... What this amendment seeks to do is to make it possible for someone running against a candidate like that to compete with that candidate." [Sen. McConnell press conference, 3/20/01]

Before He Became Its Biggest Opponent.

In testimony before a House Committee, McConnell railed against the Millionaire's Amendment, calling it "a gift for incumbents." Testifying before the U.S. House Committee on House Administration, McConnell said the Millionaire's Amendment "is a gift for incumbents" because "Senate incumbents will have unlimited coordinated party support and greatly increased contribution limits, up to 12 times the current limits. As I said earlier, this is a gift for incumbent Senators." [Sen. Mitch McConnell's testimony before the U.S. House Committee on House Administration, 5/1/01]

McConnell filed a federal lawsuit that challenged the Millionaire's Amendment. "Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)... filed suit against the Federal Election Commission." His suit included a challenge to "'millionaire's amendment,' arguing that by increasing limits on contributions for opponents of candidates who spend their own funds in campaigns, the law is essentially punishing candidates for using their "own money to engage in core political speech." [Roll Call, 3/28/02]

He Said It Would Be Wrong for Him Use It...

In 2001, McConnell said that he should not be able to use the Millionaire Amendment against "a Kentucky millionaire." Testifying before the U.S. House Committee on House Administration, McConnell said, "Let me explain how [the 'Millionaire's Amendment'] works using an example: Let's say that at the end of 2001, I have raised $3 million for my race in 2002. In January 2002, let's assume a millionaire candidate enters the race against me... If a Kentucky millionaire candidate spends in excess of $2 million, I can start raising $24,000 per couple for my race, that is $12,000 per couple for each election... As I said earlier, this is a gift for incumbent Senators." [Sen. Mitch McConnell's testimony before the U.S. House Committee on House Administration, 5/1/01]

But Planned to Use It Anyhow.

In 2008, McConnell's campaign informed donors of about the 'Millionaire's Amendment' and prepared to use it against Bruce Lunsford. "McConnell has a wide national donor base ready to tap for more money if the Millionaires' Amendment should kick in. "We expect one of the two self-funding candidates to emerge from the crowded Democrat primary, and we expect that either one of them would spend enough in the fall to trigger the Millionaires' Amendment," said Justin Brasell, McConnell's campaign manager. The campaign already has dispatched e-mails and letters warning donors of that possibility." [Herald-Leader, 3/3/08]

He Never Really Opposed It...

McConnell campaign manager: McConnell's opposition to the overall bill "had nothing to do with the Millionaire's Amendment." "There's also a touch of irony in all this. The Millionaires' Amendment that could potentially benefit McConnell later this year was part of the 2002 campaign-finance reforms... that McConnell fought. [McConnell campaign manager Justin] Brasell, however, said that McConnell's opposition to the McCain-Feingold bill had nothing to do with the Millionaires' Amendment. 'His position was that the bill restricted free speech,' Brasell said. 'If you really want to get philosophically pure, (a millionaire) could spend whatever he wants and (McConnell) could raise whatever he wants' from donors.'" [Herald-Leader, 3/3/08]

But Then Again, He Never Really Supported It.

McConnell said he did not oppose the Millionaire's Amendment, but was just doing his job being partisan as Republican leader. "The millionaire's amendment was one of several provisions that the Senate added to The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Though McConnell opposed the overall bill, he was one of the co-sponsors of the 'millionaire's amendment' for Senate races. And he voted for the amendment on the Senate floor. In a statement, McConnell said he was merely doing his job as the bill's Republican floor manager by backing a GOP amendment." [Courier-Journal, 6/27/08]

He Voted For It...

McConnell co-sponsored and voted for the Millionaire's Amendment. In March 2001, McConnell co-sponsored and voted for the Domenici Amendment to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation. The amendment made it possible for opponents of self-funding candidates to raise larger sums of money. [S Amdt 115 to S27, co-sponsored on 3/20/01, voted for on 3/20/01]

But Thought It Was Unconstitutional.

When the Supreme Court struck down the Millionaire's Amendment, McConnell praised the ruling as necessary to protect the First Amendment. "Sen. Mitch McConnell... praised Thursday's [Supreme Court] ruling striking down a provision that benefits the opponents of wealthy political candidates... 'The Supreme Court has appropriately upheld the First Amendment and I applaud their decision,' McConnell said Thursday." [Herald-Leader, 6/27/08]