Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a Republican, has won a significant case before the Supreme Court of the United States.
6-3 on Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States declared unlawful a regulation restricting the amount of money a campaign may spend to repay loans from the candidate.
According to Fox News, “Cruz had lent his 2018 Senate campaign $260,000 but federal election rules only permitted campaigns to return a maximum of $250,000 from post-election cash, and even money earned pre-election could only be utilized within 20 days after the election.”
Bipartisan Political Reform Act of 2002 states that any sum above $250,000 that is unpaid is deemed a campaign donation. In an interview with Fox News, Sen. Ted Cruz revealed that the objective of his loan was to “attack constraints in the law.”
There is an increased danger that candidate loans above $250,000 will not be returned in full due to this restriction on the use of post-election cash, according to Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court in the court’s decision.
No question, Roberts observed, “that the statute does impede First Amendment electoral expression, and any such regulation must at least be supported by a legitimate purpose.” ”
He found that the government failed to demonstrate that it had “a reasonable goal” in setting the repayment cap.
Eliminating this prohibition, Justice Elena Kagan concluded, enhances the likelihood of corruption.
A self-serving and non-public-serving government is fuelled by the Court’s decision to throw down the Act.” In doing so, it undermines the integrity of the democratic process, both real and perceived,” she wrote.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell claimed in January that Cruz’s lawsuit may pave the way for the statute to be struck down in its entirety.
BCRA has become “the Humpty Dumpty of campaign-finance law, a patchwork of elements that Congress never would have passed standing alone, and that can never be put back together,” he said in his brief to the court.
I don’t see any need for this Court to continue with piecemeal surgery on BCRA; the whole legislation should be struck. To do so, this case gives the perfect chance. The ‘Millionaire’s Amendment,’ the main feature that made BCRA politically feasible, would be entirely wrecked if this Court decides that the loan-repayment ceiling is unlawful,” he warned.
Were it not for that amendment, BCRA would have been defeated on the ballot in 2002, and what’s remained of BCRA twenty years later should be similarly defeated.” The leader added, “It’s time to send BCRA out to pasture.
BCRA has been beset by constitutional questions from its beginning,” he said. As a result, this Court has had to assess BCRA’s provisions on a regular basis because of these concerns. Senator McConnell’s original criticism of BCRA has proved correct, even though the Court first upheld most of BCRA on its face (although inflicting some flesh wounds to the statute). As a consequence, the Court has shattered BCRA’s legislative framework, leaving behind a legislative system that looks nothing like it did when Congress approved it.
Because federal candidates who made personal loans to their campaigns before the election are prohibited from repaying those loans with post-election donations totaling more than $250,000, Cruz contended Section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violates their free expression rights.
It’s clear that even a youngster can tell the difference between lending and giving a toy—and that when the lent object returns, the child understands that he has not gotten a gift and that his “personal assets” haven’t grown.