money = speech $

belated redumbdent?<div>
</div><div>=<div>=</div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2022/10/ted-cruz-campaign-spending/">https://www.alternet.org/2022/10/ted-cruz-campaign-spending/</a></div><div>
</div><div>an 10 22</div><div>Documents from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) show that over the summer, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas received a payment of $555,000 from his campaign. Reporter Bryan Metzger, in an <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-campaign-funds-fec-supreme-court-corruption-2022-10" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(11, 13, 101); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">article published by Business Insider</a> on October 18, explains why Cruz “has the U.S. Supreme Court to thank for it.”

Cruz, Metzger notes, challenged part of a 2002 law that “set a $250,000 limit on the amount of money that candidates could raise after the election for the purpose of paying off personal loans to their campaign committee.” The case, Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate, went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court — and the Court, in a 6-3 ruling, agreed with Cruz. Chief Justice John Roberts used some Citizens United-influenced language in the ruling, writing that Section 304 of the 2002 law “inhibits candidates from loaning money to their campaigns in the first place, burdening core speech."
The 2002 law was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also known as the McCain/Feingold Act (as in Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin). The High Court’s ruling in Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate struck down Section 304.
READ MORE: <a href="https://www.alternet.org/2022/09/senate-republicans-filibuster-bill-money/" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(11, 13, 101); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Senate Republicans unanimously filibuster bill to get dark money out of politics</a>

“When Cruz first ran for the United States Senate in 2012,” Metzger explains, “he loaned his campaign over $1 million of his own money amid a heated primary campaign against then-Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst of Texas. Cruz would go on to win a run-off against Dewhurst. However, the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act — championed by the late Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona — set a $250,000 limit on the amount of money that candidates could raise after the election for the purpose of paying off personal loans to their campaign committee. Thus, Cruz essentially lost $545,000 of his own money after the campaign, with the outstanding portion of the loans converted to an in-kind contribution.”

Metzger continues, “Six years later, facing an unexpectedly competitive reelection campaign against then-Rep. Beto O'Rourke in 2018, Cruz opted to challenge the law. He lent his campaign $260,000 — just $10,000 more than the limit — on November 5, just one day before the election. That allowed Cruz to initiate a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission, which eventually made its way up to the Supreme Court.”When six of the nine High Court justices found Section 304 of the 2002 law unconstitutional, Roberts’ reference to “burdening core speech” was right out of the Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC — a decision that equated campaign spending with “speech.”

The three dissenters in Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate were all appointed by Democratic presidents: Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and then-Justice Stephen Breyer, who has since been replaced by President Joe Biden’s appointee, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

READ MORE: <a href="https://www.alternet.org/2022/04/obama-was-right-about-the-negative-impact-citizens-united-would-have-legal-expert/" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(11, 13, 101); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Barack Obama was 'right' about the negative impact Citizens United would have: legal expert</a>

In her dissent, Kagan wrote, “It takes no political genius to see the heightened risk of corruption — the danger of 'I'll make you richer and you'll make me richer' arrangements between donors and officeholders. In discarding the statute, the Court fuels non-public-serving, self-interested governance."

READ MORE: <a href="https://www.alternet.org/2022/08/end-citizens-united-mehmet-oz/" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(11, 13, 101); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">End Citizens United ad hits Mehmet Oz over New Jersey ties</a></div><div>=</div>=an 6 22in a decision Monday that liberal Justice Elena Kagan warned will further corrupt the nation's money-dominated political system, the U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing majority struck down a campaign finance regulation limiting federal candidates' ability to use campaign funds to repay personal loans.Established by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, the rule barred candidates from using more than $250,000 in campaign funds collected after an election to recoup their loans to their own campaign.The legal challenge to the cap was brought by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who intentionally violated the $250,000 cap during his 2018 reelection bid in order to pursue a repeal of the limit, which he characterized as a violation of free speech.As CNN <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/16/politics/supreme-court-campaign-funds-ted-cruz/index.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">explained</a>:<blockquote style="font-size: small; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 1em 40px 1em -5px; border-left: 4px solid rgb(11, 13, 101); line-height: 32px; padding: 10px 20px 10px 24px; width: 602.546px;">A day before he was reelected in 2018, Cruz loaned his campaign committee $260,000, $10,000 over the limit—laying the foundation for his legal challenge to the cap... [H]e could have been repaid in full by campaign funds if the repayment occurred 20 days after the election. But Cruz let the 20-day deadline lapse so that he could establish grounds to bring the legal challenge.
</blockquote>The high court's 6-3 decision strikes another blow to the nation's campaign finance restrictions, which were already weak and rife with loopholes that big donors <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/16/us/politics/red-boxes-campaign-finance-democrats.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">readily and frequently</a> exploit."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," said Trevor Potter, the president of Campaign Legal Center. "More immediately, the ruling could imperil an array of similar restrictions on post-election loan repayments adopted at the state and local level out of legitimate concerns over corruption."Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) <a href="https://twitter.com/BillPascrell/status/1526212302734770177" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">added</a> on Twitter that "the right-wing Supreme Court has issued yet another preposterous decision effectively legalizing government corruption at the request of Republicans."In her <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-12_m6hn.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">dissent</a>, Kagan argued that the court's ruling will make even more common the kinds of "crooked exchanges" that have long sullied the U.S. political system, which is awash in money from <a href="https://www.citizen.org/article/ten-years-after-citizens-united/" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">corporations</a> and <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/04/20/just-12-super-rich-donors-spent-34-billion-sway-us-elections-2009-study" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">ultra-wealthy individuals</a>."Political contributions that will line a candidate's own pockets, given after his election to office, pose a special danger of corruption," Kagan argued, pointing to the issue of recouping personal loans. "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."Kagan went on to contend that quid pro quos—political favors carried out in exchange for money, in this case post-election donations—could become more rampant thanks to the Supreme Court's new ruling, which was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, who helped <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/05/21/money-unlimited" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">orchestrate</a> the high court's infamous Citizens United ruling and other <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/7/1/22559318/supreme-court-americans-for-prosperity-bonta-citizens-united-john-roberts-donor-disclosure" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">attacks</a> on campaign finance law."Post-election donors can be confident their money will enrich a candidate personally," Kagan wrote. "And those donors have of course learned which candidate won. When they give money to repay the victor's loan, they know—not merely hope—he will be in a position to perform official favors. The recipe for quid pro quo corruption is thus in place: a donation to enhance the candidate's own wealth (the quid), made when he has become able to use the power of public office to the donor's advantage (the quo).""The politician is happy; the donors are happy. The only loser is the public. It inevitably suffers from government corruption," she continued. "In allowing those payments to go forward unrestrained, today's decision can only bring this country's political system into further disrepute."In a statement, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) voiced agreement with Kagan's dissent, calling the high court's ruling "another victory for right-wing donors in their assault on our campaign finance system, and another step toward unlimited special-interest spending in our elections.""Big Republican donor interests built their supermajority to deliver wins like this one," Whitehouse added, "wins that help special interests skirt our democratic process to achieve what they want."<div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">===</div></div>