6-3 Supreme Court in Sentence Driving Monday that sen. Ted Cruz (from R to Texas) can now solicit donors to help himself with the $ 555,000 borrowed for campaigns in 2012 and 2018.
Cruz had the opportunity to repay the loan with money from a political donor after a court decision that the 2002 election campaign funding law creates an unconstitutional burden on free speech. The law prohibits candidates from raising up to $ 250,000 in post -election grants to pay off loans made during a federal political campaign.
The court decision could create a new way for political candidates to fund their campaigns using personal loans to be paid later by donors. It will also allow politicians to personally profit from their campaigns by accruing interest on loans paid by donors. And it could also indicate a further slowdown of the growing construction of campaign finance regulation.
But in the near future, a court decision will allow one candidate – Cruz – to raise money from wealthy donors and a political action committee to cover the more than half a million dollars he lent for two Senate campaigns.
The Federal Electoral Commission case against Ted Cruz came out in the Senate in the final days of Cruz’s 2018 re -election campaign against Democrat Beto O’Rourke. Cruz lent $ 260,000 to his campaign, which he deliberately chose because he exceeded the $ 10,000 fund after the election to pay off personal loans. His intention at the time of obtaining the loan was to challenge this limit in court. And upon winning, he will not only receive $ 10,000 in excess of the limit he borrowed, but also an additional $ 545,000 he lent to the campaign in 2012 and was not repaid.
The $ 250,000 debt repayment limit was raised to increase post -election funding as part of the 2002 bipartisan campaign reform act – more popularly known as McCain -Feingold after its main sponsors in the Senate. The law allows candidates to repay the loan with the amount before the election, but only if they do so within 20 days of the election.
The rationale behind these limitations is that the contributions of a candidate after the election, specifically a winning candidate, to help repay debt increases the potential for bribery or bribery, because “when a campaign uses a grant to pay off a debt from a candidate.Every dollar donated by the contributor goes into the candidate’s pocket The Department of Justice intervened at the briefing.The Court.
“Participants usually know after the election if the recipient of the election has won the election,” the DOJ briefing continued. “Therefore, the author can find out – and not just hope that the recipient will be able to give him or her official help.
Judge Elena Kagan noted there was a risk of corruption in the dispute, accompanied by judges Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
Kagan created a potential scenario: “And as long as they pay him, he will pay them. In the coming months and years they will receive state benefits: perhaps favorable laws, perhaps important duties, perhaps profitable ones. contract. The politician is happy; the donors are happy. This is the only losing company. “He will surely suffer from government corruption.”
Kegan warned that there could be far-reaching consequences: “Now, by repealing the law, the court has given the green light to any embarrassing business that Congress believes has been properly suspended.”
However, according to most, the loan repayment limit weighs on applicants and prevents them from borrowing money for the campaign. The opinion was written by Chief Judge John Roberts, along with Judges Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Cavanaugh and Amy Connie Barrett.
“This burden is no small matter,” the statement said. “Debt is a universal tool to finance the election campaign, especially for new candidates and competitors. Using this important source of campaign funding by discouraging a candidate, [the law] It removes the barrier to entry, thus reducing political rhetoric.
The long -term impact of the decision is currently unknown. More applicants may move to fund their campaigns through loans that donors can repay at a later date, but there is no instant impetus driving for such a change.
Cruz, on the other hand, can save $ 555,000 and immediately put it in his pocket. For this he can thank six conservative judges, three of whom voted in favor.
Source: Huffpost
