Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley

(Reuters). – Senator Ted Cruz is attempting to overturn a restriction on the amount that candidates can receive reimbursements for personal loans made to campaigns. The provision was deemed anti-corruption by proponents.

Cruz was supported by Republican colleagues. He argued that $250,000 in loan repayment caps violate the First Amendment U.S. Constitution guarantee of freedom speech and unjustifiably constrains political speech.

The provision is part of a bipartisan 2002 law that already has been chipped away at by the Supreme Court including in a landmark 2010 ruling https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-politics/landmark-supreme-court-ruling-allows-corporate-political-cash-idUSTRE60K3SK20100121 that allowed unlimited independent spending by corporations and unions during elections as constitutionally protected free speech. It has a conservative majority of 6-3.

They will be hearing arguments from the Justices starting at 10 a.m. EST (14500 GMT) on an appeal made by Democratic President Joe Biden’s Administration, representing the Federal Election Commision. This is in response to a lower court decision in favor Cruz.

FEC defends the law. It says the provision is meant to prevent corruption because it prohibits donors to political campaigns from making direct contributions to candidates.

Cruz was elected in 2012 to be the Texas senatorial representative. After his 2018 Senate win against Democratic opponent Beto O’Rourke, Cruz filed suit against the FEC. This enforces election laws. Cruz had given $260,000 to his campaign, but the law only allowed him to receive a reimbursement of $250,000 from his campaign.

FEC claimed that Cruz is not legally qualified to present the challenge, because he intentionally loaned more to his campaign than the caps in order to make his complaint.

The Supreme Court struck down several provisions of the 2002 Bipartisan Camp Reform Act (BCRA), also known as McCain-Feingold law, in honor of their two main sponsors, Russ Feingold and John McCain. Citizens United, v. FEC (2010) ruling that allowed unlimited corporate and union expenditure in elections opened the door to “super PACs,” which are separate political organizations from those campaigns playing a larger role in election results.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is a vocal critic of the 2002 law. In a Supreme Court 2003 case, the justices upheld several provisions. McConnell filed a brief backing Cruz. McConnell asked for the court to strike down the whole law. This included restrictions on how political parties can raise money.

McConnell lawyers stated to the justices, “There’s no reason for BCRA not to move along. No need for additional piecemeal surgery from this court. The court should strike the entirety of the statute.”

Biden’s government is trying to defend the law but no Democratic legislators have filed briefs on the cases.

Campaign finance watchdogs backed FEC in this case. They stated that raising the cap would raise expectations of political donors for official favors, allowing individuals and corporations to give directly to the winning candidate following Election Day.

Cruz’s lawyers claim that Cruz’s provision is ineffective to prevent corruption. They also note that donations can be used by campaigns to repay loans made before an election.

Cruz’s legal team stated that loan repayment caps were intended to help incumbents against wealthy opponents, similar to another provision the Supreme Court invalidated in 2008.

The provision was unanimously rejected by a Washington-based panel made up of three federal judge in June 2021.

Cruz was unsuccessful in his 2016 bid for the presidential nomination. He later supported prominently former President Donald Trump.