According to the legal public records, Jack Davis was a Democratic candidate who unsuccessfully campaigned for Congress in New York. Being an affluent candidate, he challenged the legality of the Campaign Finance Amendment that sought to level the playing fields in political contests with differing levels of funds. Due to this popular Millionaire’s Amendment, candidates running against well-heeled individuals are allowed to increase their contribution limits to match the financial resources at their opponents’ disposal.

Davis sought to remove this feature, arguing that it violated the Equal Protection principle implied in the 5th amendment. The district court rejected his claims, contemplating that his enormous campaign funds gave improper balance to his less endowed opponents. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court overturned the earlier ruling, holding that the Millionaire’s Amendment violated the rights of the self-financed candidates.

Upon consideration that commanding different limits impermissibly burdens the First Amendment, and then the Chevron deference was not applied. According to Curtis (2012), it is up for the candidate to tirelessly advocate his position as a candidate, thus the Millionaire’s Amendment penalized candidates who spent large amounts in their campaigns. According to Briffault (2008), the burden placed on wealthy individuals is not vindicated in reducing corruption and also the Congress is not responsible for equalizing electoral candidates of differing financial status. If the Chevron deference had applied, the courts would have examined the possible existence of other solutions, which itself renders the contested legislation groundless.

According to Curtis (2012), the courts can reach a different conclusion only when it is clear that the Congress had applied insufficient importance to an individual’s conventional rights. The burden implied by section 319(a) is never logical to eliminate the natural advantage all candidates have no matter their financial resources.