While the cap itself has limited impact – no one can say how many candidates are affected by it – campaign finance advocates said they were concerned the high court's decision could open a door to a further weakening of other campaign finance laws.Īssociate Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote a dissent joined by the court's two other liberal justices, said getting rid of the law opens up another loophole in the federal system of campaign finance. Cruz on campaign lawĪrguments: Supreme Court signals support for Sen. "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."Ĭert granted: Supreme Court to hear challenge from Sen. "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," Roberts wrote. Restricting the way the loans are paid back, the majority said, would make it less likely those loans are made in the first place.
SEN TED CRUZ AMENDMENT PRO
That argument resonated with the court's six conservative justices, who wrote that the government was unable to "identify a single case of quid pro quo corruption in this context." Campaign finance law already has a mechanism in place to limit the possibility of that corruption, the court wrote: limits on how much an individual donor may give.
The law wasn't about fighting corruption, Cruz's attorneys said, but rather about protecting incumbent lawmakers in Congress from wealthy challengers.Ĭruz and others said repaying a candidate loan is no different from settling bills after an election with pollsters and campaign staff.
SEN TED CRUZ AMENDMENT FREE
In what supporters called an anti-corruption rule but critics say benefited incumbents, Congress capped at $250,000 the amount campaigns may use from post-election funds to repay a loan made by the candidate out of concern that unrestricted repayment essentially amounted to putting donations into a politician's pocket.Ĭruz asserted that the limitations violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech because in practice it curbed a candidate's ability to spend money freely on their own campaign by limiting how a loan could be repaid. Ted Cruz over a federal law that limits the ability of campaigns to repay loans made by candidates in a ruling that could have broader implications for the regulation of money in politics.Ĭhief Justice John Roberts, writing for a 6-3 majority, said a federal law restricting how the loans are paid back "burdens core political speech without proper justification." WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday sided with Texas Sen. As I have done in the past, I urge my colleagues to submit this constitutional amendment to the states for speedy ratification.Watch Video: Why the Supreme Court is hearing a case on religion, prayer in schools I have long called for this solution for the brokenness of Washington, D.C., and I will continue fighting to hold career politicians accountable.
“The rise of political careerism in today’s Congress is a sharp departure from what the Founders intended for our federal governing bodies. It’s no wonder that the vast majority of Americans from every political stripe – Republicans, Democrats, and Independents – overwhelmingly support congressional term limits. “Every year, Congress spends billions of dollars on giveaways for the well-connected: Washington insiders get taxpayer money and members of Congress get re-elected, all while the system fails the American people. Senators would be limited to two six-year terms and members of the House of Representatives to three two year terms. Constitution that would impose term limits on Members of Congress. Mike Braun (R-Ind.), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), and Rick Scott (R-Fla.), today reintroduced an amendment to the U.S.
0 kommentar(er)
