It was a great day in the Supreme Court for anyone who wants to bribe a lawmaker
A case, brought by Ted Cruz, could effectively wind up legalizing bribery.
By Ian Millhiser Jan 19, 2022, 2:20pm EST
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/kHrGVQNRQLIZWNXXXaUKgSYTg7E=/0x0:3165x2185/920x613/filters:focal(1416x627:1922x1133):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/70408992/633593660.0.jpg
In this Supreme Court, any lawyer who dares to defend a campaign finance law knows they have little chance of prevailing. And Wednesday’s oral argument on one of the few remaining safeguards against excessive money in politics was no exception.
The unfortunate soul tasked with defending a niche but important anti-corruption law was Malcolm Stewart, a veteran advocate and deputy solicitor general of the United States. But at least five of the Court’s six Republican appointees displayed no openness to Stewart’s arguments, and no fear of the very real possibility that rejecting his arguments would effectively legalize bribery.
The case is Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate, and it involves a federal law intended to prevent campaign donors from putting money directly into the pockets of elected officials. Specifically, the law permits candidates to loan money to their own campaigns, but forbids the campaign from repaying more than $250,000 of that loan from funds raised after the election takes place.
https://www.vox.com/2022/1/19/22891236/supreme-court-ted-cruz-bribery-fec-loan-repayment-brett-kavanaugh-amy-coney-barrett
This is another reason why there should be public financing of elections..
= new reply since forum marked as read
