Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)The Supreme Court Makes Ted Cruz A Half-Million Dollars Richer [View all]
I thought this was a good explainer
HuffPost
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) can now hit up donors to help pay himself back for the $555,000 he loaned to his campaigns in 2012 and 2018.
Cruz won the ability to recoup his loans with political donor money after the court ruled that a 2002 campaign finance law creates an unconstitutional burden on freedom of speech. That law prohibits candidates from raising up to $250,000 in post-election contributions to repay loans made during a federal political campaign.
The courts decision could create a new way for political candidates to finance their campaigns through personal loans that would be paid back later by donors. That could also enable politicians to personally make money on their campaigns by charging interest on loans later repaid by donors. And it could also signal a further weakening of the already teetering edifice of campaign finance regulation.
But in the immediate term, the courts decision will allow one candidate ― Cruz ― to raise money from rich donors and political action committees to repay the more than half-million dollars he loaned to his two Senate campaigns.
The case of Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate emerged in the final days of Cruzs reelection campaign in 2018 against Democrat Beto ORourke. Cruz loaned his campaign $260,000, choosing this amount on purpose because it was $10,000 over the limit on post-election fundraising aimed at paying off personal loans. His intention in making the loan was to challenge this limit in court. And by winning he will not only get to recoup the $10,000 over the limit he loaned himself, but also another $545,000 he loaned his campaign in 2012 and hasnt recouped.
The $250,000 limit on post-election fundraising to repay loans was enacted as part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ― more popularly known as McCain-Feingold after its lead Senate sponsors. The law allows candidates to pay off loans with money raised pre-election, but only if they do so within 20 days after the election.
The justification for these limitations is that post-election contributions to a candidate, particularly a winning candidate, to help them repay a loan present an increased potential for corruption or the appearance of corruption because when a campaign uses a contribution to repay the candidates loan, every dollar given by the contributor ultimately goes into the candidates pocket, the Justice Department argued in a brief to the court.
A post-election contributor also usually will know whether the recipient of the contribution has prevailed in the election, the DOJ brief continues. The contributor therefore can know ― rather than merely hope ― that the recipient will be in a position to do him official favors.
Cruz won the ability to recoup his loans with political donor money after the court ruled that a 2002 campaign finance law creates an unconstitutional burden on freedom of speech. That law prohibits candidates from raising up to $250,000 in post-election contributions to repay loans made during a federal political campaign.
The courts decision could create a new way for political candidates to finance their campaigns through personal loans that would be paid back later by donors. That could also enable politicians to personally make money on their campaigns by charging interest on loans later repaid by donors. And it could also signal a further weakening of the already teetering edifice of campaign finance regulation.
But in the immediate term, the courts decision will allow one candidate ― Cruz ― to raise money from rich donors and political action committees to repay the more than half-million dollars he loaned to his two Senate campaigns.
The case of Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate emerged in the final days of Cruzs reelection campaign in 2018 against Democrat Beto ORourke. Cruz loaned his campaign $260,000, choosing this amount on purpose because it was $10,000 over the limit on post-election fundraising aimed at paying off personal loans. His intention in making the loan was to challenge this limit in court. And by winning he will not only get to recoup the $10,000 over the limit he loaned himself, but also another $545,000 he loaned his campaign in 2012 and hasnt recouped.
The $250,000 limit on post-election fundraising to repay loans was enacted as part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ― more popularly known as McCain-Feingold after its lead Senate sponsors. The law allows candidates to pay off loans with money raised pre-election, but only if they do so within 20 days after the election.
The justification for these limitations is that post-election contributions to a candidate, particularly a winning candidate, to help them repay a loan present an increased potential for corruption or the appearance of corruption because when a campaign uses a contribution to repay the candidates loan, every dollar given by the contributor ultimately goes into the candidates pocket, the Justice Department argued in a brief to the court.
A post-election contributor also usually will know whether the recipient of the contribution has prevailed in the election, the DOJ brief continues. The contributor therefore can know ― rather than merely hope ― that the recipient will be in a position to do him official favors.
18 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Supreme Court Makes Ted Cruz A Half-Million Dollars Richer [View all]
In It to Win It
May 2022
OP
Yeah sure, a lot of NOT independently wealthy candidates loan themselves $500k.
Hassin Bin Sober
May 2022
#5
As a former candidate I can tell you yes. proof is required for all financials by the FEC.
former9thward
May 2022
#11
I was asked about twenty years ago by the State party to run for Congress.
former9thward
May 2022
#12
So you had 10 grand to piss away on a race you know you couldn't win? Ok.
Hassin Bin Sober
May 2022
#13
Sounds like it. He deliberately overstepped the limit to kill the rule/law.
Hassin Bin Sober
May 2022
#6