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
- Biometric Backlash: The Rising Wave of Litigation Under BIPA and Beyond
- Tasked with Troubling Content: AI Model Training and Workplace Implications
- Extraterritorial Application of the DTSA: Recent Decision Continues to Develop “Act in Furtherance” Element
- Shielding Reproductive Freedom: Uncovering New York’s Law Protecting Providers from Civil and Criminal Liability
- The Record-Setting First National Health Care Fraud Takedown of the Second Trump Administration: What Stayed the Same and What Is New?