Breaking News
Get Actionable Insights with InvestingPro+: Start 7 Day FREE Trial Register here
Investing Pro 0
Ad-Free Version. Upgrade your Investing.com experience. Save up to 40% More details

U.S. Supreme Court backs Ted Cruz, dumps campaign finance curb

Politics May 16, 2022 04:27PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This article has already been saved in your Saved Items
 
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaks during a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations to examine U.S.-Russia policy on Capitol Hill, Washington, U.S. December 7, 2021. Alex Brandon/Pool via REUTERS

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday further undermined campaign finance restrictions, striking down as a free speech violation part of a bipartisan 2002 law challenged by Republican Senator Ted Cruz that federal officials had touted as an anti-corruption safeguard.

The justices, in a 6-3 ruling, found that a $250,000 cap on the amount of money political candidates can be reimbursed after an election for personal loans to their own campaigns ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech by unjustifiably burdening political expression.

In the ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court's conservative justices were in the majority and liberal justices in dissent. Roberts wrote that the law in question "burdens core political speech without proper justification."

It was the latest in a series of rulings in which the conservative-majority court has rolled back campaign finance restrictions, citing free speech concerns.

Roberts wrote that the government had failed to show that the measure "furthers a permissible anti-corruption goal, rather than the impermissible objective of simply limiting the amount of money in politics."

In a blistering dissenting opinion, liberal Justice Elena Kagan said the court was effectively aiding and abetting corruption in Washington by allowing donors to contribute to a campaign after an election in a way that benefits the candidate personally.

"In striking down the law today, the court greenlights all the sordid bargains Congress thought right to stop," Kagan wrote.

Politicians will know that such payments will go directly to them via the campaign, Kagan added, and the donors will hope for something in return.

"The politician is happy; the donors are happy. The only loser is the public. It inevitably suffers from government corruption," Kagan said.

Cruz, first elected to represent Texas in the Senate in 2012, sued the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the agency that enforces election laws, after his successful 2018 re-election race against Democratic rival Beto O'Rourke. Cruz had lent his campaign organization $260,000 but was limited by the law to a $250,000 reimbursement from his campaign.

A Cruz spokesperson called the ruling a "resounding victory for the First Amendment." An FEC spokesperson declined to comment.

Trevor Potter, president of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan group that supports campaign finance laws, expressed disappointment at the ruling.

"Permitting candidates to solicit unlimited post-election contributions to repay their personal campaign loans and put the donor money in their own pockets gives an obvious and lamentable opening for special interests to purchase official favors and rig the political system in their favor," Potter said.

Democratic President Joe Biden's administration, acting on behalf of the FEC, had appealed a Washington-based three-judge panel's 2021 ruling unanimously striking down the provision on free speech grounds.

The provision at issue was part of a major campaign finance law that already has been chipped away at by the Supreme Court including in a landmark 2010 ruling https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-politics/landmark-supreme-court-ruling-allows-corporate-political-cash-idUSTRE60K3SK20100121 that allowed unlimited independent spending by corporations and unions during elections as constitutionally protected free speech.

The Supreme Court has struck down various provisions of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, often called the McCain-Feingold law in recognition of its main Senate sponsors, John McCain and Russ Feingold.

In finding that the limit was not justified to deter corruption, Roberts endorsed the arguments made by Cruz, saying that restrictions already exist on how much money individuals can donate during an election cycle, currently capped at $2,900. Roberts added that the status quo likely benefited incumbents over challengers because new candidates often have to loan money to their campaigns and can find it more difficult to attract donations.

"This landmark decision will help invigorate our democratic process by making it easier for challengers to take on and defeat career politicians," Cruz's spokesperson said.

Cruz unsuccessfully sought his party's 2016 presidential nomination, later becoming a prominent supporter of former President Donald Trump.

U.S. Supreme Court backs Ted Cruz, dumps campaign finance curb
 

Related Articles

Add a Comment

Comment Guidelines

We encourage you to use comments to engage with other users, share your perspective and ask questions of authors and each other. However, in order to maintain the high level of discourse we’ve all come to value and expect, please keep the following criteria in mind:  

  •            Enrich the conversation, don’t trash it.

  •           Stay focused and on track. Only post material that’s relevant to the topic being discussed. 

  •           Be respectful. Even negative opinions can be framed positively and diplomatically. Avoid profanity, slander or personal attacks directed at an author or another user. Racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated.

  • Use standard writing style. Include punctuation and upper and lower cases. Comments that are written in all caps and contain excessive use of symbols will be removed.
  • NOTE: Spam and/or promotional messages and comments containing links will be removed. Phone numbers, email addresses, links to personal or business websites, Skype/Telegram/WhatsApp etc. addresses (including links to groups) will also be removed; self-promotional material or business-related solicitations or PR (ie, contact me for signals/advice etc.), and/or any other comment that contains personal contact specifcs or advertising will be removed as well. In addition, any of the above-mentioned violations may result in suspension of your account.
  • Doxxing. We do not allow any sharing of private or personal contact or other information about any individual or organization. This will result in immediate suspension of the commentor and his or her account.
  • Don’t monopolize the conversation. We appreciate passion and conviction, but we also strongly believe in giving everyone a chance to air their point of view. Therefore, in addition to civil interaction, we expect commenters to offer their opinions succinctly and thoughtfully, but not so repeatedly that others are annoyed or offended. If we receive complaints about individuals who take over a thread or forum, we reserve the right to ban them from the site, without recourse.
  • Only English comments will be allowed.

Perpetrators of spam or abuse will be deleted from the site and prohibited from future registration at Investing.com’s discretion.

Write your thoughts here
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
Post also to:
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Thanks for your comment. Please note that all comments are pending until approved by our moderators. It may therefore take some time before it appears on our website.
Comments (3)
Alan Rice
Alan Rice May 16, 2022 6:03PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
GOP : Well, if we can't steal 'em, at least we can still buy 'em.
Randy Helton
Randy Helton May 16, 2022 12:12PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
The United States has essentially become nothing more than a “Professed Democracy,” which through the actions of the oligarchic class over the last several decades has been transformed into a plutocracy - with more to come!
Brad Albright
Brad Albright May 16, 2022 12:12PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
True. But in this case, oligarch Cruz is making off with the campaign contributions of his duped supporters.
Ken Roth
Ken Roth May 16, 2022 11:33AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
Beginning to look a lot like Russia with oligarks instead of senators in the US getting the benefits. Who cares about the average joe he his just the sucker getting ripped. Interesting development in the US
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Add Chart to Comment
Confirm Block

Are you sure you want to block %USER_NAME%?

By doing so, you and %USER_NAME% will not be able to see any of each other's Investing.com's posts.

%USER_NAME% was successfully added to your Block List

Since you’ve just unblocked this person, you must wait 48 hours before renewing the block.

Report this comment

I feel that this comment is:

Comment flagged

Thank You!

Your report has been sent to our moderators for review
Continue with Google
or
Sign up with Email