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 Eleventh Circuit

Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. v. Secretary, State of Georgia

In Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. v. Secretary, State of Georgia and two consolidated cases, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is considering whether the Voting Rights Act’s prohibition on vote...
Voting Rights and Democracy
March 26, 2024

The Airtight Case Against Texas’ Mail-In Voting Age Requirements

Slate
In Texas and a number of other states, voters age 65 and older have the...
By: David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
Florida Supreme Court

Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Institute v. Byrd

In Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Institute v. Byrd, the Florida Supreme Court is considering whether a congressional map diminishes the voting power of Black Floridians in violation of the Florida Constitution.
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Petteway v. Galveston County

In Petteway v. Galveston County, the Fifth Circuit is determining whether a group of Black and Latino voters can challenge the dilution of their voting power under the Voting Rights Act.
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. Supreme Court

Cascino v. Nelson

In Cascino v. Nelson, the Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether a Texas law that only allows voters over age 65 to vote by mail violates the Twenty Sixth Amendment’s prohibition on age-based...
Voting Rights and Democracy
----- District Courts -----

Byrd v. Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Institute

In Byrd v. Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Institute, the Florida District Court of Appeals is considering whether a congressional map diminishes the voting power of Black Floridians in violation of the Florida Constitution.