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.



CAC case page in 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


More from Voting Rights and Democracy

Voting Rights and Democracy
November 9, 2022

False claims about Pennsylvania mail-in ballot deadline circulate online

Social media posts claim a court ruling in the US state of Pennsylvania allows the...
By: David H. Gans, by Natalie Wade, Manon Jacob
Voting Rights and Democracy
October 26, 2022

RELEASE: New Constitutional Accountability Center Amicus Brief Shows That the So-Called Independent State Legislature Theory Is a Fabrication that Cannot Be Squared with Constitutional Text and History

WASHINGTON, DC – Earlier today, the Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) filed a brief at the...
By: David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
October 19, 2022

Why US Courts Are Allowing Voters in 4 States to Use Rejected Congressional Maps

Voice of America
WASHINGTON — When midterm elections get under way next month, voters in several Republican-controlled states will...
By: David H. Gans, by Masood Farivar
Voting Rights and Democracy
October 4, 2022

Justice Jackson Takes Originalist Approach on Voting Rights

Bloomberg Law
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson invoked the original meaning of the US Constitution in her first...
By: David H. Gans, by Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson
Voting Rights and Democracy
October 4, 2022

Further erosion of voter protections signaled by Supreme Court

Courthouse News Service
Weary of attacks on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the justices appeared more...
By: David H. Gans, by Kelsey Reichmann
Voting Rights and Democracy
October 4, 2022

RELEASE: Thanks to Justice Jackson, Progressive Originalism Emerged at the Supreme Court This Morning: CAC Reacts to Oral Argument in Alabama Redistricting Case

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Merrill v....
By: David H. Gans