The Supreme Court has sided with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) along partisan lines in a ruling on campaign fundraising that “injures the integrity” of the political process, according to one dissenting justice.
The case involved Cruz’s use of post-election campaign fundraising dollars in order to pay himself back for personal loans he took out and spent during his most recent senatorial election. A federal law had previously established a cap on the amount of funds a candidate could raise following an election in order to recoup money they borrowed during the actual campaign.
In a 6-3 decision issued on Monday, the Supreme Court deemed such caps an unconstitutional violation of a person’s First Amendment speech rights. All six conservative bloc justices sided with Cruz on the issue, while all three liberals on the Court dissented.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority opinion, said that laws regulating campaign fundraising “must be at least justified by a permissible interest” — but Justice Elena Kagan, in a blistering dissent to that opinion, suggested that the Court’s decision on Monday would open up a Pandora’s box of issues and would have far-reaching consequences.
The law that was challenged does in fact address a permissible interest, Kagan noted — after all, it was passed to stand against “a special danger of corruption” that exists when “political contributions … line a candidate’s own pockets,” she wrote.
“The Court greenlights all the sordid bargains Congress thought right to stop…. In allowing those payments to go forward unrestrained, today’s decision can only bring this country’s political system into further disrepute,” Kagan went on, adding that the decision by the conservative-led Supreme Court “injures the integrity, both actual and apparent, of the political process,” and will allow for “crooked exchanges” and “dirty dealing” in the future.
When donors, particularly those who are wealthy or who represent corporate interests, “give money to repay the victor’s loan, they know — not merely hope — he will be in a position to perform official favors,” Kagan continued in her dissent.
“The recipe for quid pro quo corruption is thus in place,” she said.
The ruling further erodes a 20-year-old campaign finance law, formally called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, that has been whittled away by earlier rulings from the Court — including the infamous Citizens United ruling from 2010, which simultaneously stated that “corporations are people” and that “money equals speech.”
The result of that ruling and others like it has been a “proliferation of super PACs, which can accept and spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections, and the rise of dark money, which is undisclosed political spending that can come from any special interest, even foreign countries,” wrote Tiffany Muller, President of End Citizens United, in a 2020 article for Inequality.org on the 10-year anniversary of the ruling.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.