by Jim Tankersley and James Oliphant

Do America's campaign finance laws shortchange rich candidates, or is a fat wallet simply overrated in congressional races?

The Supreme Court tackles the first question on Tuesday, when it hears a challenge to the "Millionaires' Amendment." That's the section of a 2002 federal law that loosens fundraising limits for opponents of candidates who cut big checks to their own campaigns.

Republican House candidates across Illinois and the nation are testing the second question this fall. Struggling to recruit and trailing national Democrats 6-1 in available cash, GOP leaders have found solace in several potential "self-funders" -- candidates whose bank accounts outstrip their political experience.

In Illinois, millionaires Steve Sauerberg, Jim Oberweis, Steve Greenberg and Martin Ozinga III are running to try to help the Republicans retake Congress.

History suggests an uphill battle. Wealthy candidates often fare poorly in the electoral field, despite occasional exceptions like New Jersey's Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine or Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), both of whom pumped millions into their campaigns. In 2006, 28 congressional candidates spent $1 million or more of their own money on their campaigns. Just four are in Congress today.

Read the full story in today's Chicago Tribune.

So perhaps not surprisingly, analysts rank House candidates Oberweis, Greenberg and Ozinga as underdogs, though each of their congressional districts voted for President Bush in 2004. They call Sauerberg a long shot to unseat incumbent Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).

"Money is an important factor in many congressional elections," said David Wasserman, House editor of the non-partisan Cook Political Report. But, he added, "No amount of money can erase the fundamental political outlook of each district."

The outlooks vary for Illinois' wealthy Republican candidates.

Sauerberg, a doctor who has reported lending his campaign $1.7 million, is matched against Durbin, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat who reported $7.5 million on hand at the end of March.

Oberweis, a dairy magnate, lost a special election last month to replace ex-House Speaker Dennis Hastert. He has spent nearly $3 million of his own money so far. In November, he's headed for a rematch against Rep. Bill Foster, the Democrat scientist/businessman who scored the upset win in the GOP-leaning district and lent his own campaign nearly $2 million.

National Republicans touted Greenberg, a businessman and former minor league hockey player, as a top recruit when he decided to challenge Democratic Rep. Melissa Bean. He raised eyebrows in Washington this month when his campaign manager quit and he reported only $5,000 in available cash at the end of March, compared with Bean's $1.3 million.

Greenberg said in an interview that he expects strong fundraising in the next three months and that he will spend "whatever is needed" to close the gap with Bean by Election Day. He also said he's working hard to build grass-roots support:

"It's important that you don't buy a race," he said. "You earn it."

Ozinga, who runs a concrete business, isn't officially the Republican candidate yet in the race to replace retiring GOP Rep. Jerry Weller. He appears likely to secure the nod at the end of this month. Democrats have their candidate--state Senate Majority Leader Debbie Halvorson, who ended March with about $675,000 on hand--and already are hammering Ozinga over government contracts secured by his firm.

Ozinga indicated in campaign filings that he doesn't plan to spend more than $350,000 of his own money. Exceeding that amount would trigger the Millionaires' Amendment, the subject of Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments in the case of Jack Davis, a self-financed candidate who twice lost House races in New York.

A provision for House candidates allows them to raise contributions in excess of the usual $2,300 cap per individual donor when their opponents spend more than $350,000 in personal funds on the race.

Davis argues the amendment is unconstitutional because the higher contribution limit conferred on his opponent chills his 1st Amendment right to spend an unlimited amount of personal wealth on his campaign.

The amendment "targets a class of candidates who are exercising their fundamental right to pay for their own electoral efforts and diminishes the exercise of that right in a direct and substantial manner," Davis argues.

A three-judge district court rejected the claim and ruled that the provision does not burden speech because it places no restriction on a candidate's ability to spend his or her personal wealth.

A bevy of public interest groups contends the amendment is constitutional. So does the Bush administration, which says the provision is a "modest and constitutionally appropriate attempt to counteract the perception that a candidate who is wealthy enough can buy a seat in Congress."