The Supreme Court Makes Ted Cruz A Half-Million Dollars Richer

1
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) can now hit up donors to help pay himself back for the $555,000 he loaned to his campaigns in 2012 and 2018.

Cruz won the ability to recoup his loans with political donor money after the court ruled that a 2002 campaign finance law creates an unconstitutional burden on freedom of speech. That law prohibits candidates from raising up to $250,000 in post-election contributions to repay loans made during a federal political campaign.

The court’s decision could create a new way for political candidates to finance their campaigns through personal loans that would be paid back later by donors. That could also enable politicians to personally make money on their campaigns by charging interest on loans later repaid by donors. And it could also signal a further weakening of the already teetering edifice of campaign finance regulation.

But in the immediate term, the court’s decision will allow one candidate ― Cruz ― to raise money from rich donors and political action committees to repay the more than half-million dollars he loaned to his two Senate campaigns.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme- ... 7a3525922d

This is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Add this to Citizens United and big money now owns the government. The law should be that a candidate doesn't loan money to his/her campaign they donate the money and can't get a payback on it just like anybody else that donates to anything church, charities, political organizations, etc.

Grifters gotta grift.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: The Supreme Court Makes Ted Cruz A Half-Million Dollars Richer

4
tonguengroover wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 7:31 pm Hows a congressman come to have an extra 550K laying around to loan hisself?
Well his wife has been a managing director. at Goldman Sachs since 2012. In 2005 she joined Goldman Sachs as a private wealth manager.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: The Supreme Court Makes Ted Cruz A Half-Million Dollars Richer

5
This decision directly benefits Cruz but both parties will use it for their benefit. Super PACs were a Republican thing until a court decision legalized them so Democrats also have them. Citizens United legalized money from corporations and interest groups like unions, Democrats benefited from it too because it legalized a major source of donations for them.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: The Supreme Court Makes Ted Cruz A Half-Million Dollars Richer

6
Easier now to bribe pols, easier now to launder money, easier for corporations to have more rights and money than people, easier now to have an army of bots to spread your opinion based on lies. We have become the Ferengi. Rule Number One: "Once you have their money, you never give it back. "

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Ru ... cquisition

CDFingers
Image
Image
.
If I had a gun for every ace I've drawn
I could arm a town the size of Zhytomyr

Re: The Supreme Court Makes Ted Cruz A Half-Million Dollars Richer

7
Kagan Pens Scathing Dissent as Supreme Court Kills Another Campaign Finance Rule

In a decision Monday that liberal Justice Elena Kagan warned will further corrupt the nation's money-dominated political system, the U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing majority struck down a campaign finance regulation limiting federal candidates' ability to use campaign funds to repay personal loans.

Established by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, the rule barred candidates from using more than $250,000 in campaign funds collected after an election to recoup their loans to their own campaign.

The legal challenge to the cap was brought by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who intentionally violated the $250,000 cap during his 2018 reelection bid in order to pursue a repeal of the limit, which he characterized as a violation of free speech.

As CNN explained:

A day before he was reelected in 2018, Cruz loaned his campaign committee $260,000, $10,000 over the limit—laying the foundation for his legal challenge to the cap... [H]e could have been repaid in full by campaign funds if the repayment occurred 20 days after the election. But Cruz let the 20-day deadline lapse so that he could establish grounds to bring the legal challenge.

The high court's 6-3 decision strikes another blow to the nation's campaign finance restrictions, which were already weak and rife with loopholes that big donors readily and frequently exploit.

"While the direct effects of this decision are limited to the narrow federal provision at issue in the case, it reveals a Supreme Court increasingly out of step with the American people—who overwhelmingly recognize that unchecked campaign giving poses profound risks to the integrity of our democracy," said Trevor Potter, the president of Campaign Legal Center. "More immediately, the ruling could imperil an array of similar restrictions on post-election loan repayments adopted at the state and local level out of legitimate concerns over corruption."

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) added on Twitter that "the right-wing Supreme Court has issued yet another preposterous decision effectively legalizing government corruption at the request of Republicans."

In her dissent, Kagan argued that the court's ruling will make even more common the kinds of "crooked exchanges" that have long sullied the U.S. political system, which is awash in money from corporations and ultra-wealthy individuals.

"Political contributions that will line a candidate's own pockets, given after his election to office, pose a special danger of corruption," Kagan argued, pointing to the issue of recouping personal loans. "The candidate has a more-than-usual interest in obtaining the money (to replenish his personal finances), and is now in a position to give something in return. The donors well understand his situation, and are eager to take advantage of it. In short, everyone's incentives are stacked to enhance the risk of dirty dealing."

Kagan went on to contend that quid pro quos—political favors carried out in exchange for money, in this case post-election donations—could become more rampant thanks to the Supreme Court's new ruling, which was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, who helped orchestrate the high court's infamous Citizens United ruling and other attacks on campaign finance law.

"Post-election donors can be confident their money will enrich a candidate personally," Kagan wrote. "And those donors have of course learned which candidate won. When they give money to repay the victor's loan, they know—not merely hope—he will be in a position to perform official favors. The recipe for quid pro quo corruption is thus in place: a donation to enhance the candidate's own wealth (the quid), made when he has become able to use the power of public office to the donor's advantage (the quo)."

"The politician is happy; the donors are happy. The only loser is the public. It inevitably suffers from government corruption," she continued. "In allowing those payments to go forward unrestrained, today's decision can only bring this country's political system into further disrepute."

In a statement, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) voiced agreement with Kagan's dissent, calling the high court's ruling "another victory for right-wing donors in their assault on our campaign finance system, and another step toward unlimited special-interest spending in our elections."

"Big Republican donor interests built their supermajority to deliver wins like this one," Whitehouse added, "wins that help special interests skirt our democratic process to achieve what they want."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022 ... nance-rule

The old saying about “He who pays the piper calls the tunes” is very evident in the politics of today. We are in Gilded Age II.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: The Supreme Court Makes Ted Cruz A Half-Million Dollars Richer

8
'Dark Money Is Dark Money': Sanders Calls on DNC to Ban Super PAC Cash in Primaries

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday urged the Democratic National Committee to ban super PAC money from the party's primary process as special interest groups and billionaires pour money into elections in the hopes of defeating progressive candidates, including Summer Lee in Pennsylvania and Nida Allam in North Carolina.

"The Democratic leadership has, appropriately, condemned Republican 'dark money' super PACs which spend huge amounts of money to elect their right-wing candidates," Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote in a letter to DNC Chair Jamie Harrison. "I am concerned, however, that I have not heard any criticism from Democratic leaders about the many millions of dollars in dark money being spent by super PACs that are now attempting to buy Democratic primaries."

"The goal of this billionaire-funded effort is to crush the candidacies of a number of progressive women of color who are running for Congress," the Vermont senator continued. "I am writing to you today to demand that the Democratic National Committee make it clear that super PAC money is not welcome in Democratic primaries. I believe the party should make a public statement about our values and simultaneously consider actions that punish candidates who refuse to adhere to this principle."
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022 ... -primaries

Unfortunately Bernie is tilting at windmills, once the money flows in it is hard to stop it.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: The Supreme Court Makes Ted Cruz A Half-Million Dollars Richer

9
TrueTexan wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 9:04 pm
tonguengroover wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 7:31 pm Hows a congressman come to have an extra 550K laying around to loan hisself?
Well his wife has been a managing director. at Goldman Sachs since 2012. In 2005 she joined Goldman Sachs as a private wealth manager.
Reuters
Goldman Sachs policy gives partners, managing directors flexible vacation - memo


(Reuters) -Goldman Sachs Group Inc is giving partners and managing directors flexible vacation time, according to a memo obtained by Reuters, allowing them to take time off when needed, rather than adhere to a fixed number of days a year.
[url]https://finance.yahoo.com/news/goldman- ... 05006.html[/url

Now she can have as much time off as her husband for more Cancun vacations.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: The Supreme Court Makes Ted Cruz A Half-Million Dollars Richer

10
Both parties talk about campaign finance reform but as long as they both benefit from the current system there will be little change. And as long as the majority on SCOTUS believes that donations are equated to be free speech/1st Amendment rights, any law will get overturned by the justices.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Google [Bot] and 1 guest

cron