The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of Ted Cruz in his challenge of a campaign finance law limiting the use of post- election funds to reimburse candidates who lend large sums to their own campaigns.
The court in a 6-3 decision ruled that the regulation in question burdens core political speech without proper justification, and the majority was unconvinced by the Biden administration's argument that the regulation helps avoid the appearance of political corruption in government.
The decision split the court along ideological lines.
The theory of the legislation is easy to understand. Political contributions that line a candidate's own pockets, given after his election to office, pose a special danger of corruption, according to the dissent from Justice Elena Kagan.
The politician is happy if the donors are happy. The public is the only loser. It inevitably suffers from government corruption.
The regulation from the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act barred campaigns from using more than $250,000 in post- election funds to repay loans. After the election, any amount above that can only be repaid.
Cruz gave $260,000 to his campaign. Cruz's personal loan was not paid for twenty days after the election.
A federal district court sided with Cruz, ruling that the law discourages free speech.
The law raises the risk that some candidates may not recover their loans after an election, which may deter some candidates from loaning money to their campaigns.
The regulation raises a barrier to entry because it prevents a candidate from using this critical source of campaign funding.
This is breaking news. You can check back for updates.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
