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
September 20, 2024

“Will the Supreme Court Revive the Dangerous Fringe Election Theory It Just Rejected?”

Election Law Blog
Anna Jessurun in Slate: As several scholars predicted, ISLT proponents have now seized on the language in Moore to...
Voting Rights and Democracy
September 19, 2024

Will the Supreme Court Revive the Dangerous Fringe Election Theory It Just Rejected?

Slate
From troubling election denialism to rampant misinformation about voter fraud, there are already multiple respects...
By: Anna Jessurun
Voting Rights and Democracy
September 10, 2024

Table Talk: Absentee ballots improve elections, reinforce democracy

The Post Athens
Absentee ballots rose to popularity during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although absentee voting...
Voting Rights and Democracy
September 8, 2024

Moore v. Harper, Evasion, and the Ordinary Bounds of Judicial Review

66 B.C. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2025)
By: David H. Gans, Brianne J. Gorod, Anna Jessurun
Voting Rights and Democracy
September 5, 2024

“Moore v. Harper, Evasion, and the Ordinary Bounds of Judicial Review”

Election Law Blog
David Gans, Brianne Gorod, and Anna Jessurun have posted this draft on SSRN (forthcoming, Boston College Law Review)....
By: Brianne J. Gorod, David H. Gans, Anna Jessurun, Rick Hasen
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

In re: Georgia Senate Bill 202

In In re: Georgia Senate Bill 202, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is considering whether the Materiality Provision in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits states from denying...