Sen. Ted Cruz asks Supreme Court to void campaign loan limit

Senate Republican chief Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and the Republican Nationwide Committee joined Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Wednesday in urging the Supreme Court docket to strike down a marketing campaign funding regulation that bars profitable candidates from gathering checks from donors to repay private marketing campaign money owed of greater than $250,000.

It’s the newest effort by Republicans to free election cash from limits set by Congress in a long time previous. And this one stands a superb likelihood of profitable in a courtroom with six conservatives, all appointed by Republicans.

Throughout Wednesday’s argument, nonetheless, a Justice Division lawyer mentioned the restrict on post-election contributions prevents an apparent type of corruption. In any other case, newly elected members of the Senate and Home may solicit “presents” of cash to repay their private marketing campaign loans.

The case arrived earlier than the excessive courtroom in an uncommon method. In 2018, Cruz was locked in an costly struggle for reelection, and he had raised $35 million. However the day earlier than the election, he lent his marketing campaign $260,000, an quantity simply above the restrict set by Congress. That meant he couldn’t acquire donations after the election to cowl the final $10,000 to repay himself.

As a substitute, he cited this restriction to file a go well with alleging the $250,000 restrict was unconstitutional. A 3-judge panel dominated final yr that the supply within the McCain-Feingold Act was unconstitutional.

The excessive courtroom agreed to listen to the federal government’s attraction in Federal Election Commsision vs. Cruz.

Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor mentioned the restrict on post-election funding elevating made sense.

“Repaying a mortgage is sort of a present,” Kagan mentioned. “When contributors discover a method to put cash not within the marketing campaign however right into a candidate’s personal private pocket, that, to me, screams quid professional quo corruption.”

Candidates who misplaced aren’t more likely to get contributions, Sotomayor mentioned. “Why do you give after an election to a candidate who’s not going to spend it on getting elected?” She mentioned donors then are giving to a profitable candidate to win favors in return. “To me, that’s a pure quid professional quo.” she mentioned.

However the courtroom conservatives have repeatedly dominated that limits on election spending battle with the first Modification’s safety of the liberty of speech.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh mentioned the candidate in a expensive, shut election might even see a must lend his marketing campaign greater than $250,000. In that case, the federal restrict “appears to be a chill in your capacity to mortgage your marketing campaign cash.” He famous that contributions to a candidate are restricted to $2,900, and he questioned why that quantity may set off a priority over corruption.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett mentioned she noticed little or no proof that post-election contributions had led to corruption.