Supreme Court strikes down campaign loan repayment limits

[In It to Win It]

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a federal restriction that applied to candidates who loan large amounts of money to their own political campaigns, a victory for Sen. Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican who challenged it.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court said the law, adopted in 2002, was a violation of a political candidate’s free expression, applying longstanding rulings that said because money buys the ability to spread a political message, limits on expenditures implicate the First Amendment.

Under the law at issue, candidates who contributed money to their own campaigns could be paid back from the pool of other campaign contributions. But the repayments were capped at $250,000.

Sen Cruz loaned his re-election campaign $260,000 — intentionally going above the limit in order to trigger a legal challenge — when then-Rep. Beto O’Rourke ran against him in 2018.

https://news.yahoo.com/victory-sen-ted-cruz-supreme-141503602.html

Link to tweet

[spanone]

1. This may end up being the worse court ever.

👎🏼👎🏼👎🏼👎🏼👎🏼👎🏼

[jimfields33]

8. It seems that candidates would lose money if they have to use own money

I think this would happen to both parties.

[former9thward]

13. It is common for candidates to loan their campaigns money.

Candidates from both parties do it. And if the candidate money is not repaid then yes, they lose that money.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

17. You lost me at MAY......of course this will lead to corruption

Bigly

Anybody think Texas Ted has all us little people in mind with this case ? Ya NO

[dalton99a]

2. "The public's representatives in Congress knew it to be true. Only this Court - somehow - does not."

[Walleye]

3. As they continue to legalize bribery

[dalton99a]

4. That's exactly what it is.

[C_U_L8R]

5. So when does Elon Musk try to buy the Presidency?

[Roland99]

6. money is NOT speech. Fuck these evil cretins

All of them

[Takket]

7. Is this bad?

What does this mean? Should we care about how a losing candidate spends their “post election” donations?

[In It to Win It]

9. Here's part of Justice Kagan's dissent

[Takket]

11. She makes is completely clear to me

The way the article was written I didn’t understand.

It seems to me “loaning” money to your own campaign should not even be legal. You want to donate your own money, go right ahead.

I don’t see how a freedom of expression argument holds up nothing is stopping you from donating to your own campaign.

[Liberal In Texas]

10. Just what we need, more money in politics.

Because you just can't have enough bought and sold government.

[Fullduplexxx]

12. Corrupt court protects corruption

[Johonny]

14. Money is free speech, that's not caused any damage to the political system and democracy

right?

[Novara]

15. The First Amendment is getting more and more meaningless

[Hortensis]

16. This is why smart people vote to empower the great liberal

Last edited Mon May 16, 2022, 01:07 PM - Edit history (1)

democratic majority, 81 million voters last counted.

Subversive LWers will never been able to "dismantle" and/or take over, as they so foolishly imagine, any more than they can create their own forever-desired party, for the same reasons. But they can sabotage. And do.