The lifeblood of our often-poisonous political system, money! Our highest court has allowed an increasing amount of such blood to pump freely throughout our political bodies. The Supreme Court is now considering when and how candidates can raise money after elections to give themselves infusions. WTF?
It's been documented, fewer than 0.2 percent of Americans donated more than $2,700 to candidates. Yet, the court stands poised to expand the power of wealthy donors by allowing them to further increase their monetary influence over our elected officials.
Under federal law, candidates are limited in how much money they can raise after an election to repay personal loans they make to their campaigns. Specifically, candidates have 20 days after a campaign to use pre-election contributions to repay themselves. After that, they can raise up to $250,000 in post-election funds to pay themselves back.
Example;
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, set out to challenge the loan repayment limit in the Federal Election Campaign Act. The day before the 2018 midterm election, he loaned his campaign $260,000 and didn't repay it within 20 days. Cruz’s campaign repaid him for $250,000 of his loan with post-election funds. He wants the remaining $10,000, which is over the legal limit.
Why do we have this limit?
Because allowing candidates to raise money to pay themselves back after an election raises heightened corruption concerns. First, we are talking about money that is eventually going into candidates' personal bank accounts. Second, we are talking about money they are raising not to win an upcoming election, but to settle up on the last election. Because those who donate in this circumstance are not trying to help a candidate win election or re-election, the transactions give rise to the concern that they are merely trying to gain access to and influence over elected officials.
Allowing a candidate to raise money to pay herself back after an election raises heightened corruption concerns. But politics is increasingly a game for moneyed interests, and in part we have the Supreme Court to thank for that.
Wealthy donors' attempts to obtain access and influence over elected officials is entirely legal. That is because the court has defined corruption and the appearance of corruption, the only interests sufficient to uphold campaign finance restrictions, very narrowly. In the campaign finance world, corruption means only quid pro quo, or this for that, corruption. If preventing corruption and its appearance are the only governmental interests that can justify campaign finance restrictions, and corruption is defined narrowly, few restrictions will withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Cruz claims; that the limit violates his First Amendment rights without a sufficient reason. Why are we talking about First Amendment rights? Because as the Supreme Court has concluded for half a century, money given and spent in campaigns is speech, or at least speechlike
The first question the Supreme Court tackled was whether Cruz could even sue to challenge this law. The government has claimed that he does not have the standing to sue to challenge the federal loan repayment limit because his injury is one of his own makings; he is out $10,000 only because he purposefully set out to challenge the federal law. The problem for the federal government is the weight of authority is against it on this point, and justices from both sides of the ideological spectrum appeared rightly dubious of this claim.
Most of the action in this case centers around the second issue in this case, whether, as Cruz argues, the loan repayment limit does, in fact, violate his speech rights. Again, the question is whether preventing corruption, narrowly defined as quid pro quo corruption, is enough to keep this limit on the books. The answer is that it certainly should be, but almost certainly won’t be left on the books by this court.
read full article - The Supreme Court seems set to endorse corruption as free speech (msn.com)