(HorizonPost.com) – In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), limiting the campaign reimbursement amount for politicians post-election to $250,000. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) believes the law violates rights afforded by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) agreed to consider his argument on January 19. After his successful win for senator in 2018, Cruz loaned $260,000 to his campaign but could only see $250,000 of the money returned.
A lower federal district court ruled in favor of the senator, but the Federal Election Commission appealed the decision. They allege Cruz has no standing for the lawsuit because they claim he purposely loaned higher than the amount allowed for the sole purpose of bringing a case.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear Sen. Ted Cruz's challenge to a law that limits reimbursements to candidates who loan large sums of money to their campaigns https://t.co/wgYaPII6nf
— CNBC (@CNBC) January 19, 2022
The original reason for the law was to deter the higher risk of “quid pro quo corruption” after a campaign’s completion. Interestingly, this lawsuit is not the first time a politician challenged the rule as unconstitutional. In 2003, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) questioned the provision in court, but was unsuccessful. He filed a brief backing Senator Cruz’s recent effort.
SCOTUS won’t likely render its decision on the matter until June. Do you think the Court should rule in favor of Cruz’s case?
Copyright 2022, HorizonPost.com
