One day before Election Day in 2018, Ted Cruz loaned his Senate campaign $260,000, which the campaign used to meet their financial obligations. Section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) caps the amount of post-election contributions that can be used to pay back a candidate’s pre-election loans up to twenty days after the election at $250,000. Although the campaign was able to repay Cruz $250,000, they were not able to repay the remaining $10,000 before twenty days had elapsed. [1] The Cruz campaign sued the FEC under the First Amendment and won in front of a three-judge district court. The FEC then appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which heard oral argument in Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate on January 19. [2] The campaign argued that Section 304 violates candidates’ First Amendment right to free speech in that the twenty day limit makes them uncertain whether loans they make to their campaigns will be repaid. Therefore, they are “forgoing the speech” that their loans “would purchase.” [3] On the other hand, the FEC argued that Section 304 protects a “substantial and legitimate” government interest in preventing corruption, and that the Court should trust Congress to create reasonable legislation about campaign funding. [4] The FEC is correct in that Section 304 satisfies any level of scrutiny, including strict scrutiny. A decision in the campaign’s favor would have the potential to make political corruption more likely and weaken the democratic system.

Read More