Substitute while the actions of the article are loading
The Supreme Court split ideologically by imposing another restriction on Monday’s campaign funding, agreeing with Republican Sen. Ted Cruz’s challenge to federal restrictions on using post-election installments to pay a candidate’s loan for his campaign.
This was the Supreme Court’s latest decision to repeal part of the landmark 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act – popularly known as the McCain-Feingold Act – and reiterated the court’s view that many restrictions on campaign funding are unconstitutional. of the defense of the First Amendment of Political Speech.
Few issues, along with related voting rights laws, divide conservatives and liberals in court so clearly. The 6 to 3 decision, which included the dueling opinions of conservative Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Liberal Judge Elena Kagan, provided just one last example.
“The government has not shown this [the law] promotes a legitimate anti-corruption goal, not an unacceptable goal of simply limiting the amount of money in politics, “Roberts wrote, joined by Judges Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Cavanaugh and Amy Connie Barrett. .
The result was expected after arguments in the case filed by Cruz (Texas), and Roberts said it was just a logical progression in cases, including one of the most controversial, Citizens United v FEC.
The Supreme Court is likely to side with Cruz in the election campaign
“This court has recognized only one admissible ground for restricting political speech: the prevention of or the emergence of quid pro quo corruption,” Roberts writes. “.
For example, “we have rejected attempts to reduce the amount of money in politics … to equalize electoral opportunities by equalizing the resources of candidates … and to limit the overall influence that an importer can have on an elected official,” he wrote. he. “As well-intentioned as such proposals may be, the First Amendment – as this court has repeatedly emphasized – prohibits such attempts to undermine the ‘right of citizens to choose who governs them.” “The quote is from one of the previous cases.
Kagan said this had to be different because the post-election installments for a winning candidate for a personal loan have unique corruption risks.
“All the money does is personally enrich the candidate at a time when he can return the favor – by voting, contract, appointment,” she wrote in disagreement, joined by Judges Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
“It does not take political genius to see the increased risk of corruption – the danger of agreements between donors and officials will make you richer and you will make me richer,” she continued.
The case involved a slightly obscure part of the McCain-Feingold Act, named after meaning. John McCain (R-Ariz.) And Russ Feingold (D-Wis.)
It limits to $ 250,000 the amount that federal candidates can collect and use after the election to repay personal loans. Cruz, in his 2018 Senate re-election campaign against Democrat Beto O’Rourke, who Roberts said was the most expensive in history, lent his campaign $ 260,000 the day before the general election.
The government tried to dismiss the case, saying Cruz’s injury was “self-inflicted”; he chose the amount to exceed the limits for a test case. And his campaign had $ 2.2 million available before the election, which could be used to repay the loan in full.
But the panel that heard the request unanimously disagreed. The flaw in the government’s argument, they said, was that “it will require Senator Cruz to avoid injury by subjecting himself to a framework that he claims is unconstitutional.”
Roberts and the majority also agreed with the committee on the merits. Roberts writes that even the government seems to agree with the provision “burdening applicants who wish to make expenses on behalf of their own candidacy through personal loans.”
Loans are an important way to “start” a campaign, especially important for those who challenge incumbents, he said. He noted that the restrictions on the contributions of candidates after the election are the same as the pre-election ones and thus do not have a particularly corrosive effect. He criticized “the need for the law of prevention after prevention.”
Roberts said the government “is unable to identify any cases of corruption of the quid pro quo in this context – although most countries do not impose restrictions on the use of post-election fees to repay candidate loans.”
And he rejected the idea that the contributions could be seen as gifts to the candidate, not just make it all for the money spent on the campaign.
“If the applicant did not have the money to buy a car before giving a loan for his campaign, the repayment of the loan will not change this in any way,” he wrote.
Kagan dismissed this on a point-by-point basis, starting with how the post-election contribution is different.
At this point, she writes that both the candidate and the donor know what they are getting: the candidate is “deeply grateful” because his personal wealth is affected, and the donors know, “as they paid him, so he will pay them.”
“In the coming months and years, they will receive state aid – perhaps favorable legislation, perhaps valuable appointments, perhaps lucrative contracts,” she wrote. “The politician is happy; donors are satisfied. The only loser is society. It inevitably suffers from government corruption. “
She provided examples of post-election contributions, which she said showed just such a pattern, and challenged the majority’s view that the restrictions hampered the candidate’s ability to spend his own money to support his campaign.
“In fact, the candidate can myself-fund whatever he likes, “she wrote.” The law only hinders his ability to use to other people money to fund his campaign – just like the standard (and allowable) contribution limits. And even this restriction for third countries is modest and only applies to donations after (not before elections) to repay significant (not small) loans.
She said the court had no reason to “suggest a congressional judgment based on the particularly lewd effects of post-election donations to repay candidate loans.”
Cruz told a spokesman that the decision was “a huge victory for the First Amendment.”
The current law “imposes an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech, which unfairly benefits current politicians and the super-rich,” the statement said. “This remarkable decision will help step up our democratic process by making it easier for contenders to fight and defeat politicians in their careers.
The case is Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for the Senate.
Seung Min Kim contributed to this report.
Add Comment