SCOTUS, Ted Cruz and Money In Politics

[Jimmy Snacks]

 

 

OPINION ANALYSIS

Court sides with Ted Cruz and strikes down campaign-finance restriction along ideological lines

 

 

Edited May 17, 2022 by Jimmy Snacks

[Kivalo]

11 minutes ago, Highmark said:

And therein lies the problem.  Virtually all media is corp owned and no other election was more influenced by false media narratives than the 2020.   

That is the problem with the media but with campaign finance it's only one of the problems.

[Highmark]

4 minutes ago, Kivalo said:

That is the problem with the media but with campaign finance it's only one of the problems.

True but a huge one. 

[Kivalo]

2 minutes ago, Highmark said:

True but a huge one. 

EDIT: I mean in terms of elections...

I consider the media bias and purchasing pols to be of equal seriousness. 

Edited May 17, 2022 by Kivalo

[Highmark]

16 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

 

 

OPINION ANALYSIS

Court sides with Ted Cruz and strikes down campaign-finance restriction along ideological lines

 

 

Does that article speak to the decision itself and why it disagrees or just concentrates on the "ideological lines." 

[Highmark]

Just now, Kivalo said:

I consider the media bias and purchasing pols to be of equal seriousness. 

Reality is there is no way of telling how exactly money may or may not influence politics.   I'm not saying it doesn't but just because someone gives money to a candidate or their side doesn't mean they simply wouldn't have voted in the same manner as the donor was hoping for anyway.  No easy fix for sure.   

[Jimmy Snacks]

32 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Does that article speak to the decision itself and why it disagrees or just concentrates on the "ideological lines." 

OPINION ANALYSIS

Court sides with Ted Cruz and strikes down campaign-finance restriction along ideological lines

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/headshots/amy-howe.jpgBy Amy Howe
on May 16, 2022 at 1:51 pm

FacebookLinkedInTwitterEmailPrintFriendlyShare

Sen. Ted Cruz speaks at a campaign event in 2016. The Supreme Court agreed with him on Monday that a federal campaign-finance law violates the First Amendment. (Crush Rush via Shutterstock)

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a federal campaign-finance law that limits how and when candidates can repay loans that they make to their own campaigns. The 6-3 ruling, which held that the law violates the First Amendment, came in a case filed by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, after his 2018 victory over Democrat Beto O’Rourke – which at the time was the most expensive Senate race in history.

The case, Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate, involved Section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, which allows candidates to use up to $250,000 in post-election contributions – but no more – to repay loans that they made to their campaign before the election. A lower court ruled that the $250,000 limit is unconstitutional because the government had not shown either that it serves an interest in preventing politicians from trading favors for contributions or that the limit is sufficiently targeted to serve that interest. The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld that ruling.

Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts began by rejecting the Federal Election Commission’s argument that Cruz and his campaign lacked the right to sue because the injuries they complained about – the campaign’s inability to fully repay a $260,000 loan that Cruz made to his campaign before Election Day – did not stem from the enforcement of Section 304. It doesn’t matter, Roberts wrote, that Cruz made the loan so that he could bring a test case. The Supreme Court, Roberts stressed, has never held that a person who “purposely incurs” an injury forfeits legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of that injury.

And for purposes of whether Cruz and his campaign have a right to sue, Roberts continued, it also doesn’t matter whether the source of Cruz’s injury is Section 304 itself or a regulation that implements Section 304. Roberts reasoned that the bar on paying Cruz the final $10,000 that he loaned to his campaign, “is, even if brought about by the agency’s threatened enforcement of its regulation, traceable to the operation of Section 304 itself.”

Turning to the First Amendment analysis, Roberts explained that Section 304’s loan-repayment limitation places a burden on “candidates who wish to make expenditures on behalf of their own candidacy through personal loans.” Specifically, he noted, “y restricting the sources of funds that campaigns may use to repay candidate loans, Section 304 increases the risk that such loans will not be repaid,” which “in turn inhibits candidates from loaning money to their campaigns in the first place, burdening core speech.”

Because the loan-repayment limitation burdens First Amendment speech in elections, Roberts wrote, it can only pass muster if it is justified – which, Roberts concluded, it is not. The only acceptable reason for restricting political speech, Roberts noted, is to prevent quid pro quo corruption – that is, politicians trading favors for contributions – or the appearance thereof. But in this case, Roberts observed, federal campaign finance law already seeks to prevent quid pro quo corruption by limiting individual contributions to $2,900 per election and requiring their disclosure. And indeed, Roberts added, the government has not pointed to “a single case of quid pro quocorruption in this context — even though most States do not impose a limit on the use of post-election contributions to repay candidate loans.”

Justice Elena Kagan dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. In her view, the purpose of Section 304 “is easy to grasp: Post-election contributions “pose a special danger of corruption,” because at that point a 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.”  But at a minimum, she continued, even if there is no actual quid pro quo corruption, “the public will predictably perceive corruption in post-election payments directly enriching an officeholder.”

Kagan closed her 15-page dissent by warning that “[d]emocracy works only if the people have faith in those who govern” – something that is impossible when elected officials “trade official acts for financial gain.” By invalidating Section 304, she concluded, “the Court fuels non-public-serving, self-interested governance. It injures the integrity, both actual and apparent, of the political process.”

[Kivalo]

1 hour ago, Highmark said:

Reality is there is no way of telling how exactly money may or may not influence politics.   I'm not saying it doesn't but just because someone gives money to a candidate or their side doesn't mean they simply wouldn't have voted in the same manner as the donor was hoping for anyway.  No easy fix for sure.   

Yep, I tend to agree, hard to quantify the benefits of a dishonest media pushing you over the other guy.

[Highmark]

15 hours ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

OPINION ANALYSIS

Court sides with Ted Cruz and strikes down campaign-finance restriction along ideological lines

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/headshots/amy-howe.jpgBy Amy Howe
on May 16, 2022 at 1:51 pm

FacebookLinkedInTwitterEmailPrintFriendlyShare

Sen. Ted Cruz speaks at a campaign event in 2016. The Supreme Court agreed with him on Monday that a federal campaign-finance law violates the First Amendment. (Crush Rush via Shutterstock)

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a federal campaign-finance law that limits how and when candidates can repay loans that they make to their own campaigns. The 6-3 ruling, which held that the law violates the First Amendment, came in a case filed by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, after his 2018 victory over Democrat Beto O’Rourke – which at the time was the most expensive Senate race in history.

The case, Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate, involved Section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, which allows candidates to use up to $250,000 in post-election contributions – but no more – to repay loans that they made to their campaign before the election. A lower court ruled that the $250,000 limit is unconstitutional because the government had not shown either that it serves an interest in preventing politicians from trading favors for contributions or that the limit is sufficiently targeted to serve that interest. The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld that ruling.

Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts began by rejecting the Federal Election Commission’s argument that Cruz and his campaign lacked the right to sue because the injuries they complained about – the campaign’s inability to fully repay a $260,000 loan that Cruz made to his campaign before Election Day – did not stem from the enforcement of Section 304. It doesn’t matter, Roberts wrote, that Cruz made the loan so that he could bring a test case. The Supreme Court, Roberts stressed, has never held that a person who “purposely incurs” an injury forfeits legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of that injury.

And for purposes of whether Cruz and his campaign have a right to sue, Roberts continued, it also doesn’t matter whether the source of Cruz’s injury is Section 304 itself or a regulation that implements Section 304. Roberts reasoned that the bar on paying Cruz the final $10,000 that he loaned to his campaign, “is, even if brought about by the agency’s threatened enforcement of its regulation, traceable to the operation of Section 304 itself.”

Turning to the First Amendment analysis, Roberts explained that Section 304’s loan-repayment limitation places a burden on “candidates who wish to make expenditures on behalf of their own candidacy through personal loans.” Specifically, he noted, “y restricting the sources of funds that campaigns may use to repay candidate loans, Section 304 increases the risk that such loans will not be repaid,” which “in turn inhibits candidates from loaning money to their campaigns in the first place, burdening core speech.”

Because the loan-repayment limitation burdens First Amendment speech in elections, Roberts wrote, it can only pass muster if it is justified – which, Roberts concluded, it is not. The only acceptable reason for restricting political speech, Roberts noted, is to prevent quid pro quo corruption – that is, politicians trading favors for contributions – or the appearance thereof. But in this case, Roberts observed, federal campaign finance law already seeks to prevent quid pro quo corruption by limiting individual contributions to $2,900 per election and requiring their disclosure. And indeed, Roberts added, the government has not pointed to “a single case of quid pro quocorruption in this context — even though most States do not impose a limit on the use of post-election contributions to repay candidate loans.”

Justice Elena Kagan dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. In her view, the purpose of Section 304 “is easy to grasp: Post-election contributions “pose a special danger of corruption,” because at that point a 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.”  But at a minimum, she continued, even if there is no actual quid pro quo corruption, “the public will predictably perceive corruption in post-election payments directly enriching an officeholder.”

Kagan closed her 15-page dissent by warning that “[d]emocracy works only if the people have faith in those who govern” – something that is impossible when elected officials “trade official acts for financial gain.” By invalidating Section 304, she concluded, “the Court fuels non-public-serving, self-interested governance. It injures the integrity, both actual and apparent, of the political process.”

Tend to agree with the majority based of the constitution NOT because of who voted for it.   The limit of $2900 contribution per election cycle (as I stated above) is the check in place on quid pro quo corruption.   One could argue that the limit is restricting free speech.   I see no reason a candidate should not be able to partially fund his campaign with the intention of it as a loan.  I see no way to legislate out all corruption.   Heck on bills that you really don't care about someone could vote a way simply because his wife's brothers cousin wanted the vote a certain direction.   It could have zero to do with money at all.  This kind of came up in Charlie Wilson's War.   Now I think there is so much party line vote.   Back then they traded votes with others in congress.   That's as much quid pro quo as any and how do you stop that. 

If candidates didn't know who the money came from it might help but nobody wants that. 

Because the loan-repayment limitation burdens First Amendment speech in elections, Roberts wrote, it can only pass muster if it is justified – which, Roberts concluded, it is not. The only acceptable reason for restricting political speech, Roberts noted, is to prevent quid pro quo corruption – that is, politicians trading favors for contributions – or the appearance thereof. But in this case, Roberts observed, federal campaign finance law already seeks to prevent quid pro quo corruption by limiting individual contributions to $2,900 per election and requiring their disclosure. And indeed, Roberts added, the government has not pointed to “a single case of quid pro quocorruption in this contex

 

Edited May 18, 2022 by Highmark

[spin_dry]

Why would anyone be compelled to defend Ted Cruz? My god. 

[Jimmy Snacks]

1 hour ago, spin_dry said:

Why would anyone be compelled to defend Ted Cruz? My god. 

No shit….