- The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who was challenging a campaign finance regulation.
- The regulation barred campaigns from using more than 0,000 in post-election funds to repay a candidate’s loans to fund those campaigns.
buy cialis professional online www.ecladent.co.uk/wp-content/themes/twentysixteen/inc/new/cialis-professional.html no prescription
- The 6-3 majority ruled that the regulation in question “burdens core political speech without proper justification.”
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, in his challenge of a campaign finance law limiting the use of post-election funds to reimburse candidates who lend large sums to their own campaigns.
The court in a 6-3 decision ruled that the regulation in question “burdens core political speech without proper justification.
buy fildena online https://healthcoachmichelle.com/wp-content/themes/twentytwentyone/inc/en/fildena.html no prescription
” The majority was also unconvinced by the Biden administration’s argument that the regulation helps avoid the appearance of political corruption in the government.
The decision split the conservative-majority court along ideological lines, with liberal justices arguing in dissent.
The regulation barred campaigns from using more than $250,000 in post-election funds to repay a candidate’s loans to fund those campaigns.
“The theory of the legislation is easy to grasp. Political contributions that will line a candidate’s own pockets, given after his election to office, pose a special danger of corruption,” liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent.
Without the rule, “The politician is happy; the donors are happy. The only loser is the public. It inevitably suffers from government corruption,” Kagan wrote.
This is breaking news. Please check back for updates.
Credit: www.cnbc.com /