WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court signaled a willingness to further chip away at federal campaign finance laws on Wednesday. That’s the message the high court sent as it heard a challenge by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to restrictions on campaign fundraising to pay off loans by a candidate. 


What You Need To Know

  • SCOTUS heard a challenge Wednesday by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to restrictions on campaign fundraising to pay off loans by a candidate

  • A provision under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 limits campaigns from raising more than $250,000 after an election to pay off such personal loans

  • Cruz’s attorney argued the cap limits the exercise of free speech and compels candidates to think twice about loaning their campaign money

  • The Justice Department argued that after an election, donors know they are giving money to someone in a position to help them, which could create a greater possibility of corruption

At the end of his last Senate race, Cruz loaned $260,000 to his own campaign. He did it to try to strike down a provision under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that limits campaigns from raising more than $250,000 after an election to pay off such personal loans.

During oral arguments, Cruz’s attorney argued the cap limits the exercise of free speech and compels candidates to think twice about loaning their campaign money. Some conservative justices were receptive.

“The choice is to spend that without any possibility of getting it back or not spending it at all, and that seems to be, therefore, a chill on your ability to loan your campaign money,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said.

The rule was established to restrict campaign contributions that would end up in a candidate’s personal account. But the conservative justices seemed to agree with Cruz’s assertion that such contributions do not create a greater risk of corruption than other donations.

They also said there was no evidence of quid pro quo in this case. 

“He’s no better off than he was before. It's paying a loan, not lining his pockets,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said.

On behalf of the Federal Election Commission, the Justice Department argued that after an election, donors know they are giving money to someone in a position to help them, which could create a greater possibility of corruption.

Liberal justices also said post-election donations to pay off a candidate’s loan could be considered a gift and that Congress should be allowed to limit them as a way to find compromise among conflicting interests.

“If a third party says, ‘You're doing such a good job, I want to repay your loan for you.’ I mean, one day, I had a $10,000 loan. The next day, I don’t. I’m $10,000 richer, somebody just made me a $10,000 gift,” Justice Elena Kagan said.

Conservatives including Republicans in Congress have long chafed at many campaign finance rules. Some Republicans urged the court to go big and dismantle even more of the nation’s campaign finance restrictions, but justices largely avoided that line of questioning. 

Daniel Weiner, director of the elections and government program at the Brennan Center for Justice, wrote an amicus brief siding with FEC. He said he believes the notion of a loan-repayment limit is “tortured line of reasoning.” While he awaits a ruling to get a clear understanding of the court's reasoning, Weiner thinks there is at least one takeaway.​

“There seemed to be limited appetite for using this case to be a vehicle for sort of striking down a broader array of laws,” Weiner said.

One issue before the court is whether Cruz has the right to sue because he deliberately went over the loan repayment limit to challenge it.

The DOJ argued that if he suffered a constitutional harm, it was self-inflicted, but justices appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents were skeptical of that claim.

A ruling is expected by early summer.