• Latest
  • Trending
  • All
  • News
  • Business
  • Politics
  • Science
  • World
  • Lifestyle
  • Tech
The Supreme Court Struck Down Another Limit On Money In Politics

The Supreme Court Struck Down Another Limit On Money In Politics

May 16, 2022
Senate Education Discusses Financial Literacy, Free Period Products

Senate Education Discusses Financial Literacy, Free Period Products

February 2, 2023
Post-Global War on Terror, different missions for the National Guard

Post-Global War on Terror, different missions for the National Guard

February 2, 2023
USWNT World Cup roster prediction 4.0: How SheBelieves Cup could impact selections

USWNT World Cup roster prediction 4.0: How SheBelieves Cup could impact selections

February 2, 2023
ChildCare Education Institute launches CUR137: Completing

ChildCare Education Institute launches CUR137: Completing

February 2, 2023
Gaps in Mental Health Care for Asian and Pacific Islander People and Other People of Color

Gaps in Mental Health Care for Asian and Pacific Islander People and Other People of Color

February 2, 2023
Jean-Pierre calls Texas border czar a ‘political stunt,’ claims Biden’s actions ‘made a difference’

Jean-Pierre calls Texas border czar a ‘political stunt,’ claims Biden’s actions ‘made a difference’

February 2, 2023
House Ousts Ilhan Omar From Foreign Affairs Panel

House Ousts Ilhan Omar From Foreign Affairs Panel

February 2, 2023
National Wear Red Day declared for Friday, aims to bring awareness and fight heart disease

National Wear Red Day declared for Friday, aims to bring awareness and fight heart disease

February 2, 2023
New Report Looks at Arkansas Policies To Promote Infant, Toddler Health

New Report Looks at Arkansas Policies To Promote Infant, Toddler Health

February 2, 2023
Kyle Rittenhouse: Victim’s father’s wrongful-death lawsuit can proceed

Kyle Rittenhouse: Victim’s father’s wrongful-death lawsuit can proceed

February 2, 2023
Trump Won’t Commit to Backing the G.O.P. Nominee in 2024

Trump Won’t Commit to Backing the G.O.P. Nominee in 2024

February 2, 2023
Riviera Beach classroom gets ‘STEM’ makeover thanks to FPL grant

Riviera Beach classroom gets ‘STEM’ makeover thanks to FPL grant

February 2, 2023
Saturday, February 4, 2023
News Today
  • Home
  • World
  • Politics
  • Health
  • Education
  • National
  • News
No Result
View All Result
News Today
No Result
View All Result
Home Politics

The Supreme Court Struck Down Another Limit On Money In Politics

by newstoday
May 16, 2022
in Politics
0
The Supreme Court Struck Down Another Limit On Money In Politics
492
SHARES
1.4k
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter


WASHINGTON — The US Supreme Court on Monday eliminated a cap on how much money federal candidates can raise after an election to repay a personal loan to their campaign, the latest decision from the court’s conservative majority striking down laws intended to place guardrails on the influence of money in politics.

The 6–3 decision split the court along ideological lines, with Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. writing the opinion. Invoking past decisions that held that spending money on campaigns and election-related speech is, itself, a type of political speech protected by the First Amendment, the majority concluded that a law that limited campaigns to using up to $250,000 in postelection donations to repay a candidate’s personal loan was unconstitutional.

Roberts framed the $250,000 cap as especially harmful to “new candidates and challengers” and political outsiders, but the case was brought by an incumbent politician, Sen. Ted Cruz. The Texas Republican filed suit in federal court following his successful reelection campaign in 2018 against Democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke; Cruz loaned his campaign $260,000 and went to court after the campaign repaid $250,000, running up against the cap.

The majority agreed with Cruz that a cap on how campaigns repay a candidate’s personal loan created more risk that the candidate wouldn’t recoup their money later. That risk spurred candidates to limit how much they loaned their campaign to begin with, creating a “burden” on their political speech, Roberts wrote.

Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, wrote in a dissent that the law had served for 20 years as an important check not only against actual “crooked exchanges” between politicians and donors but also against the appearance of corrupt dealings that undermined public trust.

“The politician is happy; the donors are happy. The only loser is the public. It inevitably suffers from government corruption,” Kagan wrote. She wrote later on: “In striking down the law today, the Court greenlights all the sordid bargains Congress thought right to stop.”

There’s no limit on how much personal money a candidate for federal office — like a US Senate race — can spend on their campaign. That money can come in the form of a loan, which the campaign pays back later.

Congress adopted the $250,000 cap as part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, often called the McCain-Feingold Act. The cap was one of the law’s so-called millionaire provisions, a restriction aimed at limiting the dominance of wealthy candidates.

Roberts was skeptical of the provision’s anti-corruption goals as a compelling reason to leave it intact, writing that the court had a history of rejecting efforts to curb the influx of money in politics for “other legislative aims.” The majority found that the Federal Election Commission failed to provide specific examples of “quid pro quo” corruption — situations where a candidate extracted postelection contributions to repay personal loans in exchange for some political benefit. Roberts dismissed news reports, academic studies, and statements from members of Congress raising concerns about donor access to politicians through postelection contributions.

Roberts rejected the idea that these types of contributions were similar to gifts, writing that they didn’t give a candidate more money than they had before they made the loan.

“Such contributions instead restore the candidate to the status quo ante, a position to which he legitimately expected to return. As for losing candidates, they are of course in no position to grant official favors, and the Government does not provide any anticorruption rationale to explain why post-election contributions to those candidates should be restricted,” Roberts wrote.

Kagan countered that the cap didn’t stop candidates from putting personal money into their campaign or from using preelection donations to repay a loan while the campaign cycle was active. She wrote that the postelection cap was rooted in the idea that once donors know who won, they know who is “in a position to perform official favors.”

“Political contributions that will line a candidate’s own pockets, given after his election to office, pose a special danger of corruption,” Kagan wrote. “The candidate has a more-than-usual interest in obtaining the money (to replenish his personal finances), and is now in a position to give something in return. The donors well understand his situation, and are eager to take advantage of it. In short, everyone’s incentives are stacked to enhance the risk of dirty dealing,”

The FEC didn’t immediately comment on the decision. One of the commission’s Republican members, Sean Cooksey, a former deputy chief counsel for Cruz, put out a statement praising it, saying that it “provides much needed guidance to lower courts, to Congress, and to the Federal Election Commission on the constitutional limits of campaign-finance regulation.”

Cruz’s office released a statement calling the decision a “resounding victory for the First Amendment” and that it would “help invigorate our democratic process by making it easier for challengers to take on and defeat career politicians.”

Democrats in Congress and advocacy groups in favor of restricting the flow of money in politics criticized the decision. Trevor Potter, president of the Campaign Legal Center, which filed a friend-of-court brief supporting the FEC’s position, released a statement calling the opinion “disappointing.”

“While the direct effects of this decision are limited to the narrow federal provision at issue in the case, it reveals a Supreme Court increasingly out of step with the American people — who overwhelmingly recognize that unchecked campaign giving poses profound risks to the integrity of our democracy,” Potter said.

Rick Hasen, an election law expert and professor at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, wrote on Election Law Blog that while he found the court’s findings “troubling,” he was relieved that the court didn’t use the case as a vehicle to loosen the standards that courts apply in deciding if various types of campaign finance laws are constitutional.

“Given how strongly anti-campaign finance regulation this conservative Court supermajority is, I’m surprised this opinion wasn’t much worse,” Hasen wrote.



Source link

Share197Tweet123Share49
newstoday

newstoday

  • Trending
  • Comments
  • Latest
Stay away from S.F. national parks, police union says. Here’s what’s behind the warning

Stay away from S.F. national parks, police union says. Here’s what’s behind the warning

May 25, 2022
Gallaudet University Track Star Becomes School’s First National Champ – NBC4 Washington

Cornyn likens overrule of Roe v. Wade to Brown v. Board of Education in tweet

June 26, 2022
John Cornyn tweet about Brown v. Board of Education goes viral

John Cornyn tweet about Brown v. Board of Education goes viral

June 25, 2022
African diplomats protest alleged begins racism and inhumane clinical treat

Coronavirus: France deaths at city 14,400 ahead Macron lockdown

0
Police investigating fatal shooting in southeast

Police investigating fatal shooting in southeast

0
African diplomats protest alleged begins racism and inhumane clinical treat

Prince Harry drops royal surname after moving

0
Senate Education Discusses Financial Literacy, Free Period Products

Senate Education Discusses Financial Literacy, Free Period Products

February 2, 2023
Post-Global War on Terror, different missions for the National Guard

Post-Global War on Terror, different missions for the National Guard

February 2, 2023
USWNT World Cup roster prediction 4.0: How SheBelieves Cup could impact selections

USWNT World Cup roster prediction 4.0: How SheBelieves Cup could impact selections

February 2, 2023
News Today

Copyright © 2022 NewsToday.

Navigate Site

  • Home
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • DMCA
  • Privacy Policy

Follow Us

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • News
    • Politics
    • Business
    • World
    • Science
  • Entertainment
    • Gaming
    • Music
    • Movie
    • Sports
  • Tech
    • Apps
    • Gear
    • Mobile
    • Startup
  • Lifestyle
    • Food
    • Fashion
    • Health
    • Travel

Copyright © 2022 NewsToday.