Federal Election Comm'n v. Ted Cruz

Background

Senator Ted Cruz and his campaign committee faced a federal rule limiting repayment of candidate loans from post‑election contributions. In the 2018 race Cruz loaned $260,000 to his campaign; after the FEC’s 20‑day post‑election rule the committee repaid only $250,000, leaving $10,000 unpaid. Cruz and the committee sued, arguing that Section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and the FEC’s implementing regulation violated the First Amendment. A three‑judge District Court agreed and entered summary judgment for Cruz.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court asked whether the law’s cap on using post‑election funds to repay loans burdens political speech and whether the Government proved an anticorruption justification. The Court held the cap does burden core campaign speech because it raises the risk that candidate loans will not be repaid and thus deters candidates from lending to their campaigns. It found the Government’s evidence insufficient to show quid‑pro‑quo corruption or its appearance and explained that the FEC regulation implementing the 20‑day rule depends on the statute.

Real world impact

The ruling removes a federal constraint that made candidates less likely to use large personal loans, especially challengers and new campaigns. Campaigns may now be able to recover larger loans from post‑election contributions, reducing a deterrent to self‑funding. The decision arose from a merits ruling and affirms the District Court’s judgment.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Kagan (joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor) dissented, arguing the limit is a modest regulation that protects against corruption and the appearance of corruption and that deference to Congress was warranted.