Supreme Court will hear Sen. Ted Cruz suit challenging campaign finance rules

The Supreme Court has finally agreed to hear a lawsuit. Sen. Ted Cruz has brought this suit challenging campaign of the federal financing rules. This rule restricts the ability of a campaign to raise money after an election to repay the personal loan of a candidate.

Cruz, a Texas Republican, won the lawsuit in a lower court over this summer. It had found that the limits were violating his First Amendment rights. The Federal Election Commission has further appealed the ruling of the lower court to the Supreme court in July.

Cruz’s suit challenging campaign was one of the five cases that the Supreme Court announced to hear on Thursday. The justice will return to the courtroom on Monday to begin with, a new term.

On the day before the election of 2018, Cruz has lent his campaign $260000. It is $10000 more than the maximum level of what federal law allows to be repaid along with post-election fundraising.

Groups that are favoring tougher finance limits say that allowing campaigns to raise money to repay their candidate loans is more like putting more into a candidate’s hand.

“The use of post-election contributions to repay personal loans creates a heightened risk of actual and apparent quid pro quo corruption,” the FEC told the Supreme Court in explaining the limits. “Money that repays a personal loan after an election effectively goes into the candidate’s pocket.”

But Cruz further countered that the restriction enhances the risk of any candidate loan that will never get paid fully. It forces a candidate to think twice before making such loans in the first place. It is an outcome that he argued, saying that this amounts to a restriction to freedom of speech.

A spokesperson for Cruz has decided on the court as a great news n. He asserted that the existing rule of FEC will benefit incumbent politicians while making it harder for the challengers to run for office.

The high court agreed to hear the lawsuits that are challenging the decision of the City of Boston to deny the ability of a Christian group to raise a flag at City Hall. Camp Constitution frames its mission as teaching about the Judeo-Christian heritage of the country. It has assisted the denial and violated its First Amendment rights.