Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is campaigning in the hope of Penalty Senate Dave McCormick, here he pretends to be holding a peanut while joking about wearing masks to protect himself from Covid-19.
Amy Dilger Lightrocket | Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of Senator Ted Cruz, Texas, in his challenge to a campaign finance law restricting the use of post-election funds to reimburse candidates who donate large sums to their own campaigns.
The Court ruled in decision 6-3 that the regulation in question “burdens the main political speech without proper justification”. The majority was also unconvinced by the Biden administration’s argument that the regulation helps prevent political corruption in the government.
The ruling divided the court by a conservative majority ideologically, with liberal judges arguing in controversy.
“The theory of legislation is easy to understand. The political contributions that will fill the pockets of the candidate given after his election pose a special danger of corruption, “said Judge Elena Kagan’s disagreement.
Without the rule “The politician is happy; donors are happy. The only loser is society. It inevitably suffers from government corruption, “wrote Kagan, who was joined by Judges Stephen Brier and Sonia Sotomayor.
The regulation, in a section of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, prohibits campaigns from using more than $ 250,000 in post-election funds to repay loans to a candidate to fund those campaigns. Any amount above this can only be paid within a 20-day window after the election.
Cruz has lent $ 260,000 for his successful 2018 campaign against Democratic contender Beto O’Rourke. Twenty days after that election, $ 10,000 of Cruz’s personal loan remained unpaid.
The senator, who deliberately exceeded a quarter of a million dollars to challenge the regulation, claims the 20-year rule violates his rights to free speech. A federal district court has sided with Cruz, ruling that the law discourages “personal funding of campaign speech.”
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts wrote in a majority opinion Monday that the law increases the risk of some candidates failing to repay their loans after the election, which “in turn may prevent some candidates from lending money for their campaigns when otherwise they would do so by reducing the amount of political speech. “
“By preventing an applicant from using this critical source of campaign funding, [the regulation] it raises the barrier to entry – thus shortening political speech, “Roberts wrote.
This is breaking news. Please check again for updates.
Add Comment