According to the Washington Examiner, the U.S. Supreme Court announced this week that it has added five new cases to the docket ahead of the upcoming term — including at least one with potentially significant political consequences.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is involved in the case and is challenging a requirement under the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act stipulating that a campaign committee may not reimburse more than $250,000 worth of a candidate’s personal loans using funds raised after Election Day.
“Plainly a cognizable injury”
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate emerged from the aftermath of Cruz’s successful re-election bid against Democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke.
The Texas Republican stated in his court filing that he finished the campaign with $337,748 in “net debts outstanding,” including money Cruz himself borrowed.
Due to the federal reimbursement limit, he claims he was left with about $10,000 in remaining expenses and was forced to cover the amount out of pocket.
As a result, Cruz argues he said the situation is “plainly a cognizable injury” and contends that the FEC rule has serious repercussions.
For starters, he maintains that it “burdens the core First Amendment rights of candidates, committees, and contributors,” disproportionately impacting those without significant personal wealth.
“To establish factual basis”
“Today’s decision by the Supreme Court to hear Sen. Cruz’s challenge to this unconstitutional restriction on free speech is great news,” said a Cruz spokesperson.
The source added that current rules “benefit incumbent politicians and the super-wealthy by making it harder for challengers to run for office,” going on to express confidence that “the Supreme Court will again rule in favor of the First Amendment and free speech.”
Of course, the FEC has defended its rule, insisting that it is a necessary safeguard “against quid pro quo corruption or its appearance.”
The commission also alleges in its filing that the loans Cruz extended to his campaign were not made in good faith but rather “to establish factual basis for this challenge.”
Among the other cases set to be heard by the Supreme Court is a dispute involving Camp Constitution, which was denied permission to fly its flag — featuring a Christian cross — as part of a Boston initiative allowing groups to display their flags outside of City Hall.