You are using an outdated browser.
Please upgrade your browser
and improve your visit to our site.
Skip Navigation

Mitt Romney Gets Dissed At The Supreme Court

The Court heard oral argument today in Davis v. FEC, the case that asks whether the so-called Millionaires' Amendment of the McCain–Feingold law unconstitutionally burdens the free-speech rights of self-financing candidates for office. I'll have a piece on the case up on the website in a little bit, but for now I'll just call your attention to this unfortunate swipe (pdf) that plaintiff's counsel Andrew Herman took at the former governor of Massachusetts:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I think--I mean, obviously you're correct that this system benefits incumbents, but it benefits your client in a particular way as well. The parties are certainly interested in candidates who will fund themselves because that presents less strain on the party's resources.

MR. HERMAN: Mr. Chief Justice, they are interested in those candidates only inasmuch as they get elected. The moment that the public turns on them, they won't be interested. And certainly the public was not particularly interested in Mitt Romney, who spent a significant amount of money on his own behalf, and many other spectacular flameouts.


CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I'm not sure we need characterizations of the political candidates--


MR. HERMAN: I apologize.

Poor Mitt...

--Josh Patashnik