It is fair, I think, to say that a substantial majority of those who heard the argument in the case of Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate doubted that, irrespective of whatever they might think of Ted Cruz, it was highly likely that he and his campaign organization would prevail in challenging the federal campaign finance law limitation on the use of post-election funds to repay a candidate's personal loans as violative of the First Amendment rights of candidates who want to make expenditures on behalf of their own candidacy through personal loans. But, by a six-three division between the Court's judicial conservatives and liberals, that is precisely what has occurred. Those who criticize the Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), likely will feel much the same way about the Cruz case.
Recent Updates
- The Courthouse Banned Your AI Glasses: What New York’s Smart Glasses Rule Means for Litigants and Counsel
- Fall 2026 SCOTUS Preview: Cases to Watch
- Same Trade Secret Dispute, Different Injunction Standards: PCC Airfoils v. Daugherty, et al., and Forum Choice in Ohio
- ABA and FWA: Compliance Best Practices
- Regulatory Scrutiny in ABA: What Providers Need to Know About Compliance Oversight