Ted Cruz for Senate, et al. v. FEC
Summary
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.
Background
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.
Analysis
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 Record — June 2021; April 2019
Documents
Supreme Court
Court decisions:
Related documents:
- Reply Brief for the FEC (01/07/2022)
- Brief for Appellees (12/15/2021)
- Brief of Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U School of Law as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant (11/22/2021)
- Brief of Campaign Legal Center, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Common Cause, and Democracy 21 as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant (11/22/2021)
- Brief of Constitutional Accountability Center as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant (11/22/2021)
- Brief of Amicus Curiae Public Citizen in Support of Appellant and Vacatur (11/2021)
- Brief for the FEC (11/15/2021)
- Brief for the FEC in Opposition to Motion of Appellees to Affirm or Dismiss (08/25/2021)
- Brief of Campaign Legal Center as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant (08/06/2021)
- Motion to Affirm or Dismiss (08/06/2021)
- Brief Amicus Curiae of Institute for Free Speech in Support of Appellees (08/05/2021)
- Jurisdictional Statement (07/07/2021)
District Court (DC)
Court decisions:
- Judgment (06/17/2022)
- Memorandum Opinion (06/03/2021)
- Order (06/03/2021)
- Memorandum Opinion and Order (12/24/2019)
Related documents:
- Defendant FEC’s Amended Notice of Appeal (6/13/2021)
- Defendant FEC's Certification of Vote to Appeal (6/11/2021)
- Defendant FEC's Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (09/08/2020)
- Plaintiffs' Combined Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (08/11/2020)
- Defendant FEC's Motion for Summary Judgment (07/14/2020)
- Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support (06/09/2020)
- FEC's Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (07/12/2019)
- Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of their Application for a Three-Judge Court and Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (06/28/2019)
- FEC's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (06/07/2019)
- Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (04/01/2019)