It is fair, I think, to say that a substantial majority of those who heard the argument in the case of Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate doubted that, irrespective of whatever they might think of Ted Cruz, it was highly likely that he and his campaign organization would prevail in challenging the federal campaign finance law limitation on the use of post-election funds to repay a candidate's personal loans as violative of the First Amendment rights of candidates who want to make expenditures on behalf of their own candidacy through personal loans. But, by a six-three division between the Court's judicial conservatives and liberals, that is precisely what has occurred. Those who criticize the Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), likely will feel much the same way about the Cruz case.
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Sentencing Commission Seeks Public Input on Amendments to Fraud Sentencing Guidelines
- Agentic AI’s Next Iteration: From Super-AIs to Teams of Specialized Agents — and What It Means for Law & Business
- Divided Court Clarifies Limits on Federal Habeas Appeals - SCOTUS Today
- A Pattern of Uncertainty: Judicial Decision-Making During Federal Shutdowns
- Navigating FDA’s Stance on DSHEA Disclaimer Placement