Posted on 05/16/2022 9:10:54 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Supreme Court sided with Senator Ted Cruz in a 6-3 decision issued Monday morning in a case brought against him by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) over how loans from candidates can be repaid following an election cycle.
The decision was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett while Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent and was joined in the minority by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor.
Sen. Ted Cruz, who clerked on the Supreme Court, has won his case in FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate. The court ruled 6-3 that a federal campaign-finance law limiting repayment of loans by candidates violated the First Amendment. https://t.co/KRfI1zNhDR— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 16, 2022
As Roberts explains, the situation at issue — while convoluted by the bureaucratic intricacies of U.S. election law — is fairly straight forward:
In order to jumpstart a fledgling campaign or finish strong in a tight race, candidates for federal office often loan money to their campaign committees. A provision of federal law regulates the repayment of such loans. Among other things, it bars campaigns from using more than $250,000 of funds raised after election day to repay a candidate’s personal loans. This limit on the use of post-election funds increases the risk that candidate loans over $250,000 will not be repaid in full, inhibiting candidates from making such loans in the first place. The question is whether this restriction violates the First Amendment rights of candidates and their campaigns to engage in political speech.
The FEC issue arose after Cruz's successful 2018 campaign that was the most expensive U.S. Senate campaign in the nation's history. As the majority opinion explains, Cruz loaned his campaign $260,000 in the final stretch of his race against Vanity Fair cover model Robert Francis O'Rourke. The Cruz campaign began to repay the loan after a 20-day window following the election in which loan repayment of more than than $250,000 is allowed, meaning Cruz didn't receive repayment of the final $10,000 inline with election law. Cruz and his Ted Cruz for Senate Committee then filed action in U.S. District Court, alleging that the law prohibiting loans over a certain amount from being repaid violated the First Amendment.
After hearing the case, the District Court granted summary judgment and held that a loan-repayment limitation is a burden on political speech that lacks adequate justification.
As Chief Justice Roberts writes in the decision affirming the D.C. District Court's judgment, "By restricting the sources of funds that campaigns may use to repay candidate loans, Section 304 increases the risk that such loans will not be repaid. That in turn inhibits candidates from loaning money to their campaigns in the first place, burdening core speech." Roberts further notes that "This Court has recognized only one permissible ground for restricting political speech: the prevention of “quid pro quo” corruption or its appearance." The government's evidence to support its case, Roberts states, "concerns the sort of 'corruption,' loosely conceived, that we have repeatedly explained is not legitimately regulated under the First Amendment."
Deep State didn’t side with Cruz.
And Deep State lost, which is what counts.
Cruz took Deep State to the woodshed.
This wasn’t a loss for Deep State.
If Cruz can take Deep State to a woodshed, any woodshed, why don’t we have our republic back...?
Cruz just beat this back some.
because that was just one battle out of many.
Another reason why Roberts is not a liberal. No liberal would go with the 1A arguments in such a case. Roberts is an institutionalist, not a liberal.
“ Cruz took Deep State to the woodshed.”
Doesn’t matter. Deep State candidate’s can do this openly, instead of doing it behind the scenes illegally and trying to hold others accountable for what they get away with. For the Deep State. It was win-win.
Deep State either threw us a bone, is trying to give Cruz some street cred, or is going to make it easier for Deep State owned candidates to do what Cruz did.
Heck, since Deep State can multitask, possibly two or three of the above.
Deep State controls the SCOTUS now.
The only decisions issued are Deep State’s.
How do we get our Republic back with a guy who runs for President while Canadian?
See my tagline.
Well, I know how much criticism there is of John Roberts. In this case he was with the conservative majority.
Why would a campaign finance law ruling be decided by a partisan vote?
So, ya take out a personal loan to run your campaign. After election, you can use postelection contributions from corps or groups to pay off a personal loan. Weird.
The vote denotes the partisan nature of the court justices. I’m confident few FReepers are unaware of the fact.
Of course it was a loss for Deep State.
You can’t spin it.
Same as it usually is. Nothing new there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.