WASHINGTON (CN) — Despite retorts from liberal justices warning of a bribery scheme, the conservative supermajority Supreme Court indicated support Wednesday for a case that could change the limits on how much money political candidates can recoup from their campaigns.
Senator Ted Cruz claims that while he was free to spend unlimited amounts of money on his campaign for reelection to the U.S. Senate, his First Amendment rights were violated by the government’s regulation on limits to how much he can receive in loan repayments with post-election funds.
Justice Elena Kagan countered that Cruz’s speech wasn’t limited by the provision but instead the limit was on how much he could get paid for that speech.
“It just limits the amount of speech that a candidate can make on somebody else's dime,” the Obama appointee said.
The case arose out of Cruz’s tight 2018 election against onetime presidential hopeful and current Texas gubernatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke. A day before the election, Cruz loaned his campaign $260,000 — $10,000 more than the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act allows to be paid back with post-election funds. The campaign had 20 days after the election to reimburse Cruz in full without having to comply with the BCRA, but, at Cruz's request, it did not start repayment until after the 20 day period had elapsed. Cruz was paid back $250,000, with the remaining $10,000 converted into a campaign contribution.
Cruz sued the Federal Election Commission, and a panel of three federal judges ruled in his favor last year. The Supreme Court took up the case in September.
At oral arguments this morning, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said allowing candidates to be paid not for what they are doing in an election but after they get elected is a classic quid pro quo situation.
“My normal reaction is why do you give after an election to a candidate who's not going to spend it on getting elected," the Obama appointee said. "He's going to spend it on something in the past but certainly not nothing with respect to the actual election and his getting his post. And to me, that's a natural quid pro quo.”
Justice Stephen Breyer echoed the possibility for corruption, noting that the payments would be paybacks not contributions.
“It isn't a pure contribution, it is paying back money that the candidate advanced and that's a plus, and it's a big plus,” the Clinton appointee said. “So we say we will, with this particular kind of contribution — which isn't really a contribution, it's a payback — with this particular kind we will offset.”
Disagreeing that candidates like Cruz could use the provision to make money, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said Cruz would be no better off than before. Barrett also claimed there was no real evidence of quid pro quo corruption that the government could show.
“This doesn't enrich him personally because he's no better off than he was before,” the Trump appointee said. “It's paying a loan not lining his pockets.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the provision would chill a candidate’s ability to loan their campaign money.





