Voting Rights and Democracy

RELEASE: Supreme Court Gives Pass to Post-Election Corruption

WASHINGTON, DC – Following the Supreme Court issuing its ruling today in Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate, Constitutional Accountability Center Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen shared the following reaction:

Today’s ruling not only ignores the Framers’ deep commitment to preventing corruption in government but also casts aside the Court’s own commitment, enshrined in precedent, to permitting Congress to regulate quid pro quo corruption and the appearance thereof. In the wake of today’s decision, any remaining commitment of this Court to upholding campaign finance regulation seems a hollow promise.

As CAC’s brief laid out in detail, the law that Senator Cruz challenged narrowly targets scenarios that pose a heightened risk of quid pro quo corruption, as well as the appearance of such corruption. As Justice Kagan explained in dissent, when donors contribute after an election to a campaign to which a candidate has made significant personal loans, “[t]he 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 heightened threat of corruption—and, even more, of its appearance—is self-evident (except, it seems, to observers allergic to all campaign finance regulation).”

Today’s ruling shows that this allergy afflicts the majority of the Supreme Court. By essentially giving a free pass to the risk and appearance of quid pro quo corruption in the days following an election, the Court reached a result anathema to those who drafted and ratified our Constitution.

# 

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
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

California v. Trump

In California v. Trump, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is considering whether President Trump’s executive order on voting is unlawful.
Voting Rights and Democracy
January 9, 2026

Supreme Court Gets New Warning in Pending Case

Newsweek
The Democratic National Committee has filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court’s upcoming election law...
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. Supreme Court

Watson v. Republican National Committee

In Watson v. Republican National Committee, the Supreme Court is considering whether Mississippi may count absentee ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but received up to 5 business days later.
Voting Rights and Democracy
December 9, 2025

CAC Release: Major Campaign Finance Case Tests Court’s Willingness to Respect Congress’s Policy Judgments Aimed at Curbing Harmful Corruption

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in National Republican...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
October 15, 2025

The Supreme Court Is Poised to Rule That It’s Racist to Remedy Racism

Slate
Is it racist to remedy racism? That’s the question at the heart of Callais v. Louisiana,...
Voting Rights and Democracy
October 15, 2025

Supreme Court seems skeptical of key provisions in Voting Rights Act

Medill News Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 15 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court expressed skepticism Wednesday of a key provision of the Voting...