In an expected ruling by the 6 Republican judges, the Supreme Court ruled against another provision of a major law of 2002 to bind the sway that money had on today’s politics. In effect, the court took the side of the far-right Republican Senator Ted Cruz.
The court’s decision was 6-3 in favor of Ted Cruz and predictably went along party lines as Chief Justice Roberts wrote to wipe off the $250,000 boundary on the campaign contributions that are made post-election to repay the personal loans incurred by a candidate during an election.
Various watchdog groups and the federal administration under Joe Biden argued that such a provision prevented corruption to a large extent as it prevented interest lobbies from contributing to a winning candidate in any way so that it directly moved into the personal account.
Justice Roberts received the support of the 5 other Republican-appointed judges who ruled that there was little evidence for the court to declare that it would lead to a spurt in corruption.
The judges ruled that the federal government had failed to prove that the law as it was at present gives any impetus to anti-corruption. It only has the impermissible objection of just restricting the flow of money into politics.
The Conservative Judges Ruled For Ted Cruz, Agreed That Any Restriction Would Inhibit Political Dialogue
The Republican judges wrote that existing finance laws limited the money donated by individuals and termed the federal government’s approach as one of multiple ‘prophylaxis’ which did not match up to the sordid effect such an approach would exert on political dialogue.
The majority of judges wrote that candidates would think twice about funding their speech if they are limited by law to get repaid. It increased the risk of the loan ever getting repaid.
The judges concluded that it was an inhibition of the candidate from using this vital source of funding for their campaign. Ted Cruz’s team had argued that the limit benefitted the super-rich and incumbent politicians unfairly.
Ted Cruz’s spokesperson said that they were gratified at the ruling and the decision would be healthy for the democratic process and make it convenient for contenders to face off and win against entrenched career candidates.
The dissenting judges wrote that the ruling will make the donors and the politicians happy. And the only loser would be the public who inevitably will suffer from institutional corruption.
The conservative judges also overlooked the point that all incentives are geared toward dirty dealings in loan repayments.
