SCOTUS Sides With Cruz in Campaign Finance Ruling

by | May 17, 2022 | News, Supreme Court

On Monday, by a 6-3 vote, the conservative majority United States Supreme Court voted to strike down a federal law capping the number of campaign dollars a candidate could repay themselves with post-election contributions. The vote sides in favor of Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz who paid $260,000 in campaign donations toward his 2018 Senate re-election campaign against now gubernatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke. 

The Section 304 provision killed by SCOTUS, also known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act passed in 2002, was created to regulate campaign finances and donations. More specifically, it tried to limit the amount of money in politics by bribery donations from corporations to politicians. 

According to court documents, Cruz’s repayment was short $10,000 after the 20-day deadline issued in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and argued and won the case that the law impedes his First Amendment freedom of speech rights.

The conservative majority ruled in favor of Cruz while the three liberal justices dissented. In the SCOTUS opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the conservatives ruled the federal cap on candidates repaying personal loans after election results is unconstitutional and burdens “core political speech without proper justification.”

“But there is no doubt that the law does burden First Amendment electoral speech, and any such law must at least be justified by a permissible interest,” Roberts wrote. “We conclude that Cruz and the Committee have standing to challenge the threatened enforcement of Section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. ”

The dissenting opinion, written by Elena Kagan, argues the majority ruling against the law will dismantle a system meant to combat political corruption. 

“Repaying a candidate’s loan after he has won election cannot serve the usual purposes of a contribution: The money comes too late to aid in any of his campaign activities,” Kagan wrote. “All the money does is enrich the candidate personally. At a time when he can return the favor—by a vote, a contract, an appointment. It takes no political genius to see the heightened risk of corruption—the danger of ‘I’ll make you richer, and you’ll make me richer’ arrangements between donors and officeholders.”

Kagan also said the majority’s decision would diminish public trust even more in the political system. 

“The people cannot have faith in representatives who trade official acts for financial gain,” Kagan wrote. “The politician is happy; the donors are happy. The only loser is the public.”

The former chairman of the Federal Election Commission and now president of the Campaign Legal Center said this in a statement in response to the ruling: 

“Today’s decision from the Supreme Court of the United States in FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate is a disappointing one,” Potter wrote.“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.”

Original photo: Jarek Tuszyński / Wikimedia Commons

kennedy@texassignal.com | + posts

Kennedy is a recent graduate of the University of St.Thomas in Houston where she served as Editor-in-Chief of the Celt Independent. Kennedy brings her experience of writing about social justice issues to the Texas Signal where she serves as our Political Reporter. She does everything from covering crime beats, Texas politics, and community activism. Kennedy is a passionate reporter, avid reader, coffee enthusiast, and loves to travel.

Are you tired of Texas Republicans pushing big lies and trying to steal your vote? So are we, that’s why we’re fighting back against the right-wing lie machine. Our commitment to ethical, fact-based journalism is vital to our democracy, and we can’t do it without you. Consider donating today to help us stay in this fight.

Continue Reading

Supreme Court Declares War on Environment

Supreme Court Declares War on Environment

To cap off what is possibly the most right-wing judicial term in over a century, the highest court in the land has dealt yet another massive blow to the progression of common-sense liberal governance. In today’s ruling in the case West Virginia v. EPA, Chief Justice...

Liberal Justices Protect Texas Veterans From Right-Wing

Liberal Justices Protect Texas Veterans From Right-Wing

In a rare good ruling from the nation’s highest judicial body, the Supreme Court issued a June 29 ruling in the case of Torres v. Texas that protects veterans from discrimination by state governments and retains legal liability for those same administrations. Military...

Op-ed: Abortion is Inextricable From Voting Rights

Op-ed: Abortion is Inextricable From Voting Rights

From the moment I saw that positive pregnancy test, I knew that I didn’t want to be pregnant. I was a senior in a typical Texas high school, working a part time job at my local McDonalds, who, up to that point, was told how to act, think and believe. But at that...