Analysis is trickling in about the impact the Supreme Court's recent decision on the Millionaire's Amendment will have on the "rescue funds" provision of existing and future Clean Elections laws.

CQ Politics offers a thorough and balanced analysis of the questions at hand. Of principle concern is whether the Court's ruling that the Millionaire's Amendment -- a provision that says that candidates facing wealthy, self-financed candidates can raise contributions in excess of federal limits if their opponents spend above a certain threshold of their own money -- puts an undue burden on self-financed candidates will effect the matching funds allocated to out-spent Clean Elections candidates.

The article includes opinions from people on both sides of the issue, including Public Campaign's President and CEO Nick Nyhart.

Jerry Burris of the Honolulu Advertiser wonders about the effect of the ruling in a more local context: the recently passed Clean Elections pilot program for County Council elections on the Big Island of Hawaii:

[T[here are important differences between the Hawai'i law and the one rejected by the Supreme Court. The justices focused on the part of the federal law that allowed the millionaire's opponent to go back to donors and collect more than what the law normally allows. The high court has already held that contribution limits are constitutional, as long as they are applied equally to all.

That equality concept would be lost under the Millionaires Amendment.

But the Hawai'i law is a little different. It doesn't wipe out existing contribution limits when the rich candidate gets generous with himself. It simply pumps additional cash into his opponent's campaign. The candidate accepting public money cannot accept private contributions at all.

It's good to see that no one's taking a "sky is falling" read on this issue, because Clean Elections has faced several court challenges on this very issue and come out on top each time. We're not thrilled by the Supreme Court decision, but we can point to successful Clean Elections systems across the country -- and this year's high participation in the first cycle of Clean Elections in Connecticut -- to show the value of laws like this one.