Millionaires are already wildly overrepresented in Congress. The Supreme Court gave a big boost to rich candidates by striking down the "millionaire's amendment," which was designed to help level the playing field for candidates running against wealthy opponents.

Americans say time and again that they want fair and clean elections. Federal campaign-finance law limits the amount that candidates can accept from contributors. But candidates are free to spend as much of their own money as they want, which is why being rich can be such a great political advantage.

Congress passed the amendment in 2002 as part of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law. It says that when candidates spend more than a certain amount of their own money on a campaign, their opponents can accept contributions of three times the usual limit -- $6,900 from individual donors, instead of $2,300. The opponent can continue to accept amounts at that level until he can match his self-financed rival's spending.

Jack Davis, who spent more than $2 million of his own money on his losing race for Congress in 2006, challenged the amendment. By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that the millionaire's amendment violates the First Amendment. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said that the amendment infringed on Davis' speech rights, because when he spent his own money -- which the court considers to be speech -- he was being penalized by having his opponent's contribution limits raised.

This logic is flawed. The amendment does not infringe on anyone's right to speak. Davis could say, or spend, as much as he wanted. It merely allowed his opponent to accept larger contributions to finance his own campaign -- and campaign speech. That clearly advances the goals of the First Amendment and ensures that more Americans, wealthy or not, can participate in the political process.

The ruling is conservative judicial activism of the first order. Congress passed the millionaire's amendment to "level electoral opportunities for candidates of different personal wealth." But the court baldly asserted that this is not "a legitimate government objective."

Most of the McCain-Feingold law remains in effect. But the decision suggests that the court may now go on to strike down more central rules, such as the limits on campaign spending by corporations and unions.

The majority showed disproportionate concern for the rights of the wealthy, disregard for the goal of making elections fairer and a lack of respect for Congress. That is a dangerous combination for a court charged with maintaining the health of America's democracy.