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
- CFPB’s Recent Rule Eliminates Medical Debt from Credit Reports
- Justices Rebuke Appeals Court for Overlooking High Court Precedent on Unduly Prejudicial Evidence - SCOTUS Today
- TikTok, the Clock Won’t Stop, and Cases Involving Court Jurisdiction Narrowly Focused - SCOTUS Today
- The Second Circuit Revives Sarah Palin’s Defamation Suit Against The New York Times
- How Do Litigators Build the Perfect Jury in a Polarized World? – Speaking of Litigation Video Podcast