What Ted Cruz’s Supreme Court Win Means

To hold his Senate seat against his challenger, Beto O'Rourke, in 2018, Ted Cruz spent nearly $40 million. O'Rourke's campaign spent double that amount. The day before the vote in Texas, Cruz lent his campaign $260,000. This was a curious—and seemingly unnecessary—gesture: The campaign's final report showed it ended with $263,000 cash in hand. Yet Cruz was not acting irrationally. He was preparing the ground for a challenge of his own, an assault on the tottering remains of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law of 2002. That law, more formally known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or BCRA, limited how campaigns could repay loans from candidates. A campaign has 20 days in which it can repay such loans in full. After that deadline, it can repay no more than $250,000. When Cruz's campaign finished repaying him, the deadline had elapsed. So his campaign committee settled only $250,000 of the loan, leaving $10,000 outstanding—which Cruz then sued in federal court to recover, arguing that the law's provision was a violation of his First Amendment rights. That set in motion more than three years of litigation with the Federal Election Commission that came to a conclusion in Monday's Supreme Court ruling . Cruz… Read full this story

What Ted Cruz’s Supreme Court Win Means have 301 words, post on www.theatlantic.com at May 18, 2022. This is cached page on Drudgereport. If you want remove this page, please contact us.