The Supreme Court agrees with Senator Ted Cruz, strikes campaign deposit limit

Placeholder during loading article actions

Supreme Court split along ideological lines in hit another campaign Financial restrictions Monday, agree with Republican Senator Ted Cruz challenge up to federal limits on in use of post- pre-election contributions to repay the candidate’s loan for his campaign.

It was latest Supreme Court decision knock out Except of the landmark Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act, and re-emphasized view so many restrictions on campaign finances are unconstitutional violations of First amendment protection of political speech.

A few questions along with the relevant laws relating to voting rights so clearly separate conservatives and liberals in court. 6-to-3 ruling presenting conflicting views of conservative Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Liberal Justice Elena Kagan provided only latest example.

” government did not show that [the law] contributes to a legitimate anti-corruption goal and not an illegal target of just a limitation amount of money in politics’, Roberts wrote. joined Judges Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Cavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

result expected after arguments in case brought by Cruz (Texas) and Roberts said it was just logical progression in affairs, including one of the most controversial Citizens United vs. FEC.

The Supreme Court is likely side with Cruz in campaign case

This court recognized only one allowable land for restriction of political speech: prevention of “quid pro quo” of corruption or its manifestations,” wrote Roberts, “we consistently reject attempts to limit campaign speech based on other legislative purposes.

For example, “we rejected attempts reduce in amount of money in politics … to equalize electoral opportunities by leveling the resources of candidates … and to limit general influence that a member can have over en elected official,” he wrote. “However well-intentioned such proposals may be, the First Amendment—as this Court has repeatedly stressed—prohibits such attempts to forge with right of citizens to choose from who will manage them. Quote taken from one of previous cases.

Kagan said it one should were different because post- pre-election contributions in favor of the winning candidate off personal loan unique corruption risks.

“All money enriches the candidate personally at a time when he can repay the same vote contract, date, ”she wrote. in disagreement joined by Judges Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

“It doesn’t take any political genius to see an increase risk of corruption is danger of “I will make you richer, and you will make me richer” – agreements between donors and officials, she continued.

The case concerned a somewhat obscure part of The McCain-Feingold Act, named after Senators John McCain (R-Arizona) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin).

This is caps for $250,000 amount federal candidates can raise and use after the election to pay off personal loans. cruz, in his re-election to the Senate in 2018. campaign against Democrat Beto O’Rourke, whom Roberts noted was the most expensive in history has lent his campaign $260,000 the day before general elections.

government tried to deal thrown outaccording to Cruz injury was “self-inflicted”; he chose amount go beyond for a test case. And him campaign It was on Before the election, $2.2 million was raised that could be used to pay off the loan in full.

But panel of the judges hearing the suit unanimously disagreed. Flaw in in government’s argument, they said, is that “for this to happen, Senator Cruz must avoid en injury exposing oneself framework he claims it is unconstitutional.”

Roberts and most also agreed with in panel on dignity. Roberts wrote that even government seemed to agree with the provision “imposes a burden on candidates who wish incur expenses on on behalf of of his own candidacy through personal loans.”

Loans are important way to “jump-start”and the campaign is especially important for those who challenge officials, he said. He noted that the limits on contributions to candidates post- elections are the same as pre-election ones, and therefore do not carry a particularly corrosive effect. He criticized the lawneed for prevention after prevention.

Roberts said that government “Not a single case could be identified of quid pro quo corruption in this context, even though most States do not impose restrictions on in use of post- electoral contributions to repay the candidate’s loans.

And he rejected the idea that contributions could be seen as gifts candidate, not just make it whole for in money spent on in campaign.

“If the candidate did not have money to buy a car before he made loan his campaign repayment of credit won’t change that in Any way,” He wrote.

Kagan rejected it on point by point, starting with how in post- Electoral fees are different.

At that moment, she wrote that both the candidate and the donor know what they get: the candidate is “deeply grateful” because it affects his personal wealth, and donors know “As they paid him, so he will pay them.”

“In the coming months and years they will receive government perks – maybe favorable legislation, maybe valuable appointments, maybe lucrative contracts,” she wrote. “The politician is happy; donors are happy. The only loser is public. He inevitably suffers from government corruption”.

She gave examples of post- campaign contributions, which, according to her, showed just such a model, and challenged the position of the majority that the restrictions prevented the candidate ability to spend his own money promote it campaign.

“A candidate can in fact myselffinance whatever he likes,” she wrote. “The law only prevents him ability to use Other people money finance it campaign – as well as standard (and allowable) contribution limits. And even this thirdparty restriction modest oneapplicable only to post- (not pre) election donations to repay significant (not small) credits.

She said the court has no reason to “second-Guess Congress experience-based judgment on specifically corrupting effects of post- donations to the elections to repay the candidate’s loans.

Cruz said through a rep that decision was a resounding victory for First Amendment.”

The existing law “imposed an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech that has unfairly benefited incumbent politicians and super rich,” the statement said. “This landmark decision we will help revitalize our democratic process by making it easier for contenders for victory on and defeat career politicians.”

The fact Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate.

Seung Min Kim contributed to this report.

NO COMMENTS

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Exit mobile version