The Chief Justice wrote that loans play a special role for candidates who challenge those in office.
“As a matter of practice, personal loans are sometimes the only way to an unknown challenge with limited links to pre-load campaign expenses,” he wrote. “And the initial cost – and thus the initial exposure – is crucial to a newcomer’s success. A large personal loan can be a useful tool to indicate that political outsiders are confident enough in his or her campaign to get the attention of donors and voters and get skin on the game.
Chief Justice Roberts added that the regular $ 2,900 limit on donations would continue to apply under the law, which means that 86 donations are allowed before the $ 250,000 limit is reached, reducing the argument that the law fights corruption.
He said there was no evidence that the law had led to corruption and that the candidates who had repaid the loan were getting the full amount. “If a candidate does not have the money to buy a car before he borrows money for his campaign, repaying the loan will not change it in any way,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.
That argument, Judge Kagan wrote in rebuttal, “completely missed the point”.
“No matter how much money the candidate has before lending to his campaign, he has less after that: the amount of the loan is the amount of the hole in his bank account. So he can buy anything with $ 250,000 – of course a car, but that’s the main thing – he can no longer buy. That is, until the donors repay him.
Judges Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Korsch, Brett M.. Kavanagh and Amy Connie Barrett agreed with the majority opinion, and Judges Stephen G. Prairie and Sonia Chottomer joined in the disagreement.
Federal Election Commission v. Senate vs. Ted Cruz, no. Case 21-12 was heard before a three-judge special court in Washington. Arose from a lawsuit filed against the Cruise Commission. Correction.
Judge Naomi RaoOrdinary sitting in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Wrote to the consensus committee That cap is an unconstitutional burden on candidates’ freedom of speech.
“Total coffee junkie. Tv ninja. Unapologetic problem solver. Beer expert.”