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
March 23, 2026

The Alito Wing of the Supreme Court Sure Sounds Sold on Trump’s Voter Fraud Lies

Slate
CAC Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program David H. Gans' article...
Voting Rights and Democracy
March 23, 2026

The Supreme Court’s Conspiracy-Brained Justices Are Ready to Limit Mail-In Voting

Balls and Strikes
Balls & Strikes summarized the arguments in Watson v. RNC, linking to CAC's brief. Read more at...
Voting Rights and Democracy
March 21, 2026

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick: The Roberts Court’s Internal Reckoning

Slate
The Constitutional Accountability Center's brief in Watson v. RNC was discussed on Slate's Amicus podcast. Listen to the full...
Voting Rights and Democracy
March 23, 2026

CAC Release: The Conservative Attack on Voting By Mail Comes to the Supreme Court

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Watson v....
By: David H. Gans, Simon Chin
Voting Rights and Democracy
March 19, 2026

“Myths Around Election Day Deadlines: What the Civil War Teaches Us About Absentee Voting”

Election Law Blog
CAC Senior Research Associate Lucy Resar‘s research on the history of absentee voting was featured on Election Law Blog....
By: Lucy Resar
Voting Rights and Democracy
March 19, 2026

Myths Around Election Day Deadlines: What the Civil War Teaches Us About Absentee Voting

Over the past two decades, the Supreme Court has steadily eroded access to the ballot....
By: Lucy Resar