The Supreme Court added a landmark campaign finance case to its docket on Thursday that could cause significant changes depending on how the Supreme Court makes its decision.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz For Senate, which was brought forward by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).
The case seeks to change the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which placed a flat cap of $250,000 on campaigns reimbursing candidate’s personal loans.
Senator Cruz loaned his own campaign $260,000, and following his successful reelection campaign, he was only reimbursed $250,000. The extra $10,000 exceeded the cap for reimbursement of personal loans.
This provision is obviously nonsensical, and Senator Cruz is working hard to have this fundamentally broken law fixed. The Supreme Court adding his case to their docket certainly indicates that there is a level of agreement between Senator Cruz and the Court.
Senator Cruz’s court filing alleges that the reimbursement cap “burdens the core First Amendment rights of candidates, committees, and contributors.”
Senator Cruz is up against a particularly motivated Federal Election Commission that is determined to shoot down this complaint.
The FEC claimed that the reimbursement cap exists to protect “against quid pro quo corruption or its appearance.” The issue for the FEC is Senator Cruz’s case is built around recovering his own funds that he loaned to the campaign.
Campaign finance laws, in general, are a landmine of broken and inconsistent rules, and the Supreme Court weighing in on this issue is a great sign. The Supreme Court needs to be more involved in cleaning up the nightmare that is America’s campaign finance law.