skip navigation
Here's how you know US flag signifying that this is a United States Federal Government website

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Dot gov

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.


Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Ted Cruz for Senate, et al. v. FEC


On June 3, 2021, a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the court) ruled that section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which limits the repayment of candidate loans, is unconstitutional.


On April 1, 2019, Ted Cruz for Senate and Senator Ted Cruz (Plaintiffs) filed suit against the Commission alleging that section 304 of BCRA (52 U.S.C. § 30116(j)) violates the First Amendment. That section prohibits campaigns from repaying more than $250,000 in personal loans incurred by the candidate using contributions made after the date of an election. Plaintiffs contend that the loan-repayment limit unconstitutionally infringes the First Amendment rights of the Senator, his campaign, and any individuals who might seek to make post-election contributions.


The court found that the loan repayment limit restricts political speech and association for candidates and their contributors by imposing a constraint on the repayment options available to candidates who choose to make personal loans to their campaigns. Post-election contributions are subject to the same base limits as those made before an election. The court held that when layered upon the base limits, the loan-repayment limit places an additional restriction on pre-election expenditures and post-election contributions, which intrudes on fundamental rights of speech and association without serving a substantial government interest. As a result, the court concluded that because the Commission “failed to demonstrate that the loan-repayment limit serves an interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption, or that the limit is sufficiently tailored to serve this purpose, the loan repayment limit runs afoul of the First Amendment.”

Source: FEC RecordJune 2021; April 2019


Supreme Court

Court decisions:

Related documents:

District Court (DC)

Court decisions:

Related documents: