Voting Rights and Democracy

RELEASE: Anti-Corruption Campaign Finance Provision at Risk in Supreme Court 

WASHINGTON – Following oral argument in FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate at the Supreme Court this morning, Constitutional Accountability Center President Elizabeth Wydra issued the following reaction:

Congress enacted the McCain-Feingold law to prevent corruption in elections, in part, by barring federal candidates from using more than $250,000 in post-election campaign contributions to repay their personal campaign loans. The law narrowly targets post-election payments that pose a heightened risk of quid pro quo corruption, as well as the appearance thereof, and is consistent with the text and history of the Constitution, which make clear that combating corruption in government lies at the foundation of our system of democratic government.

Today’s argument, however, suggests that the $250,000 limit is at risk. This is true even though, as Justice Kagan explained, a post-election gift to a candidate that enables them to pay off a loan “screams quid pro quo corruption interest,” and as Justice Sotomayor pointed out, “Contributing to the winner [of an election, as opposed to a candidate], is a very different corrupting influence.”

To be clear, this part of McCain-Feingold does not meaningfully burden campaign speech. The restriction challenged by the Cruz campaign applies only after the election is over, when the voters have already selected a representative. And by targeting post-election payments, it fits squarely within the constitutional principle of avoiding corruption in government. Gifts given at a time when it is known that the politician will retain political power plainly give rise to an intolerable risk of actual quid pro quo corruption and the appearance of quid pro quo corruption. Disappointingly, too few of the Justices today seemed to recognize that principle.

#

Resources:

CAC case page in Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/federal-election-commission-v-ted-cruz-for-senate/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Voting Rights and Democracy

Voting Rights and Democracy
Wisconsin Supreme Court

Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy v. Wisconsin Elections Commission

In Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is considering the legality of Wisconsin’s congressional redistricting map.
Voting Rights and Democracy
July 8, 2026

“Ruling Away From America’s Second Founding” on the Election Law Blog

Election Law Blog
David Gans’s Slate article on the Roberts Court was featured on Election Law Blog. Read more.
Voting Rights and Democracy
June 30, 2026

CAC Release: Roberts Court Strikes Down Yet Another Campaign Finance Law, Turns Blind Eye to Corruption

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in National Republican Senatorial Committee...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
June 29, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Rebukes Fifth Circuit, Affirms State Authority to Permit Post-Election Receipt of Mail Ballots

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Watson v. Republican National...
By: David H. Gans, Simon Chin
Voting Rights and Democracy
June 21, 2026

Guns, Weed, and the Forgotten Framers

Slate
CAC's David H. Gans discussed his forthcoming paper in the Stanford Law Review on the Black Conventions...
Voting Rights and Democracy
June 3, 2026

How Congress Can Pass a New Voting Rights Act Despite the Supreme Court

Slate
Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights & Citizenship David H. Gans wrote an article in...
By: David H. Gans