Supreme Court Sides With Ted Cruz In Campaign Finance Case

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Forbes

BREAKING * BUSINESS

Supreme Court Sides With Ted Cruz In Campaign Finance Case

Alison Durkee Forbes Staff

May 16, 2022, 10:27am EDT

TOPLINE The Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in a campaign finance case concerning how campaigns can repay candidates' loans, in a 6-3 decision that critics warn could make it easier to bribe political candidates.

KEY FACTS

-- Cruz sued the Federal Election Committee regarding a rule that limits how political campaigns can reimburse candidates for loans they make to their own campaign, allowing them to repay up to $250,000 in loans at any time, and more than that only if they're repaid within 20 days post-election.

-- Cruz made a $260,000 loan to his campaign right before the election in 2018 and $10,000 could not be repaid, so Cruz sued to challenge the underlying regulation, arguing it infringed on his First Amendment rights.

-- The court ruled that the limitation on repaying loans "burdens core political speech without proper justification," saying if politicians can't be fully reimbursed by their campaigns, it will dissuade them from loaning money in the first place.

This story is breaking and will be updated.

Follow me on Twitter. Send me a secure tip.
https://www.twitter.com/alisond64
https://www.forbes.com/tips/

Alison Durkee

I am a New York-based journalist covering breaking news at Forbes. I previously covered politics and news for Vanity Fair and Mic, and as a theater critic I serve as a member of the New York Outer Critics Circle. Follow me on Twitter @alisond64 or get in touch at [e-mail].

Read more: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/05/16/supreme-court-sides-with-ted-cruz-in-campaign-finance-case/

---

NEW: Splitting along ideological lines, Supreme Court rules for Ted Cruz'd challenge to a law limiting post-election political contributions to repay a candidate's loan to his campaign.

Link to tweet

-- -- -- -- -- --

Here is the opinion from John Roberts in Federal Election Commission v. Cruz: https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-12_m6hn.pdf. The three liberal justices dissent.

This is the second and final opinion of the day.

Link to tweet

[Blue Owl]

1. I bet the RW judges got a nice little perk -- like tickets to Cancun

[patphil]

2. I don't think a candidate should be allowed to get any money back,

He gave it to his campaign. It's no longer his.

[yaesu]

3. And the hits to our democracy just keep on commin nt

[dalton99a]

4. The corporatist Roberts is consistent.

[Marthe48]

5. I thought no one liked cruz

guess he found losers to hang with.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. They do like the idea of donor funds going straight to an elected politician's pocket

so they don't have to like Cruz personally - the majority opinion says that democracy demands influence and access to politicians, and the appearance of corruption doesn't matter - you have to prove specific corruption:

The Government instead puts forward a handful of media reports and anecdotes that it says illustrate the special risks associated with repaying candidate loans after an election. But as the District Court found, those reports “merely hypothesize that individuals who contribute after the election to help retire a candidate’s debt might have greater influence with or access to the candidate.” 542 F. Supp. 3d, at 15. That is not the type of quid pro quo corruption the Government may target consistent with the First Amendment. See McCutcheon, 572 U. S., at 207–208.

The dissent at points shrugs off this distinction, see post, at 2, 12, n. 3, 13, but our cases make clear that “the Government may not seek to limit the appearance of mere influence or access.” McCutcheon, 572 U. S., at 208. As we have explained, influence and access “embody a central feature of democracy—that constituents support candidates who share their beliefs and interests, and candidates who are elected can be expected to be responsive to those concerns.” Id., at 192.

To be sure, the “line between quid pro quo corruption and general influence may seem vague at times, but the distinction must be respected in order to safeguard basic First Amendment rights.” Id., at 209. And in drawing that line, “the First Amendment requires us to err on the side of protecting political speech rather than suppressing it.” Ibid. (quoting Wisconsin Right to Life, 551 U. S., at 457 (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.)).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-12_m6hn.pdf

[Marthe48]

12. Just a dig at all parties for this stinking pile

No one will ever like cruz and do him a personal favor. He is a shill, willing to whore himself and pretend people like him for doing their dirty work.

Thank you for posting this

[intheflow]

13. Democracy demands influence and also

protestors are not allowed under law to protest with an attempt to influence judges. Got it, Law and Order Party!

[JudyM]

24. Just vile.

We need barf bags distributed when these opinions are issued.

We’d better dig deeper to fight conflicts of interest in Congress and the S.Ct. Pelosi was working up some draft legislation recently, wasn’t she? Time to hit it hard.

[DFW]

15. No Senators like Cruz

Sleaze outside of the Senate agrees with him as long as they don't have to tolerate his presence.

[Scrivener7]

6. They don't even try to hide it anymore. 6:3. And anyone who says Roberts

is trying to hold a line of minimal reason is a dimwit.

[Mr. Sparkle]

7. 6-3 is the new 5-4 along ideological lines.

This court does not have the confidence of the people and should be disbanded. Its turned into a running joke

[JohnSJ]

8. I think it is pretty clear by now that the Supreme Court does matter

[BumRushDaShow]

9. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that was overturned by Citizen's United

needs to be reworked and made into law.... But unfortunately that joins a long long list of other things that need to be passed.

[highplainsdem]

10. Disgusting. And dangerous.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

14. Of course they did.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

16. SCOTUS endorses oligarchy

[JohnSJ]

17. It is hard to fathom how much he has screwed the people in Texas, and they still re-elected him

“Thank-you sir, may I have another”

[llashram]

18. it is all

about corruption now. Money has ALWAYS driven politics. Cruz is such a lousy POS that I just get enraged. The rich get richer...

[NullTuples]

19. Didn't Trump have a scam running that involved loaning his campaign money?

IIR it fit right into this scenario and the end result was that he converted campaign donations into personal funds, effectively turning the campaign into a bribe mechanism.

[KS Toronado]

23. That was totally legal for millions of $$$

sitting presidents sitting on GOLDEN toilets are above the law, if they can flush money with one try.

[NullTuples]

30. Aaand...today the FEC ruled that Trumps' money laundering was okay, too.

Can't make this stuff up. Same deadlock, same getting-away-with-it

[link:https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-campaigns-brad-parscale-0a8013b0b787bacd0ac0a8bf4dcf8b42|

[KS Toronado]

31. per your link..."evenly split between Democrats and Republicans"

and they're deadlocked, typical f@@king repugs, they are a cult alright,
can never find fault with one of their own.

[NullTuples]

32. And that's how they'd win even without violence in various forms

- Republicans never find fault with their own (unless said person is deemed a liability)
- Democrats try to judge fairly both ways

It inevitably results in a slow ratchet to the right anywhere this phenomenon occurs.

[The Grand Illuminist]

20. Yet nothing is done about it.

nt

[randr]

21. Ultimately it is the voters who keep electing these asswipes

who are responsible for the state of affairs.
We are a minority controlled nation and until the people rise up and take back their country we have no right to complain.

[Dorn]

22. Court is moving further into DISREPUTE

In striking down the law today," Kagan wrote, "the Court greenlights all the sordid bargains Congress thought right to stop. . . . In allowing those payments to go forward unrestrained, today's decision can only bring this country's political system into further disrepute.

[DallasNE]

25. This Case Was Never In Doubt

It is but an extension of Citizens United that said corporations are people and money is speech. The critics of Citizens United have been right and the critics of this decision will be right for the same reason. More legalized corruption on a grand scale.

[moniss]

26. It should be pointed out

that given the lenient financial shenanigans being allowed in the stock market, real estate and exotic financial constructs it is entirely possible for a candidate to never actually transfer any assets to the campaign and yet have the campaign pay him a nice check. A candidate could easily pledge a "promissory" type of instrument and declare that as a "loan" to the campaign backed by his personal credit. Then the instrument can be used by the campaign to "leverage" other donations and then pay the candidate in order to release the instrument back to the candidate. In other words the instrument would be like a contract that says "I will execute an instrument promising you $250,000 to use for campaign purposes and for said use of the promissory instrument you will pay me $250,000 in consideration for my allowing you to use said instrument for campaign purposes. Upon completion of the campaign you agree to release the instrument back to me along with the agreed upon consideration." So in reality the candidate never has to actually "cut a check" and given the nature of the relationship if the candidate should fail to make good on the promissory note it is not likely that his own campaign is going to haul him into court. As we have just seen even the highest court will look the other way.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

27. "@tedcruz 's win at the Supreme Court today is a big victory for the @USConst_Amend_I ..."

The First Amendment Retweeted

@tedcruz
's win at the Supreme Court today is a big victory for the
@USConst_Amend_I
and protects #FreeSpeech for all.

Key reason -- the government can't restrict speech or how much is spent on speech because it sounds like a good idea.

It has to PROVE it.

Link to tweet

I protect your right to use campaign contributions made after the date of the election to repay personal loans you made to your campaign.

Link to tweet

[Harker]

28. From the people who brought you "corporations are people"

and "money is speech", this is unsurprising.

The coup continues.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

29. This 6-3 SCOTUS ruling in FEC v. Ted Cruz is a trillion times more important than the Johnny Depp...

This 6-3 SCOTUS ruling in FEC v. Ted Cruz is a trillion times more important than the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial because it basically lets politicians who are currently in office raise money to funnel bribes directly into their own pockets in exchange for favorable legislation

Link to tweet