Sign up for DML's newsletter

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service on the internet, DML News App offers the following information published by

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in his legal challenge to federal limits on the amount of money candidates can raise from donors to pay off their personal debt after an election.

The court struck down a $250,000 cap on the amount of post-election funds a candidate can be repaid for personal loans they made to their campaign, finding that the restriction violated the First Amendment.

The article goes on to state the following:

The 6-3 ruling split along familiar ideological lines, with the court’s conservatives siding with Cruz over a dissent from the court’s three liberals.

Writing for the court’s majority, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “By restricting the sources of funds that campaigns may use to repay candidate loans, (the regulation) increases the risk that such loans will not be repaid. That in turn inhibits candidates from loaning money to their campaigns in the first place, burdening core speech.”

Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent, “And as they paid him, so he will pay them. In the coming months and years, they receive government benefits — maybe favorable legislation, maybe prized appointments, maybe lucrative contracts. The politician is happy; the donors are happy. The only loser is the public. It inevitably suffers from government corruption.”

SCOTUS blog tweeted Monday, “The Supreme Court sides with Sen. Ted Cruz in his First Amendment challenge to a federal campaign-finance law that limits how and when candidates can recoup loans that they make to their own campaigns. The vote is 6-3 along ideological lines. Here is the opinion from John Roberts in Federal Election Commission v. Cruz: The three liberal justices dissent. This is the second and final opinion of the day.”

Reuters reporter Lawrence Hurley wrote, “NEW: Supreme Court rules in favor of Republican Senator Ted Cruz in challenge to campaign finance restriction. On 6-3 vote court found that a $250,000 cap on the amount of money political candidates can be reimbursed after an election for personal loans to their own campaigns ran afoul of the First Amendment.”

“The court’s six conservatives are in the majority, with the three liberal justices dissenting. Justice Kagan dissenting: ‘The politician is happy; the donors are happy. The only loser is the public. It inevitably suffers from government corruption.'”

“‘In striking down the law today, the Court greenlights all the sordid bargains Congress thought right to stop,’ Kagan adds, pulling no punches.”

Listen to the latest daily DML podcasts below! Then please share. And if you have the DML NEWS APP, please tell people to download it today and help conservatives have a real voice.

To get more information about this article, please visit


  1. Someone should tell that dumbbell that she is to decide the Constitutionality of laws, not to second guess the outcome and decide based on her ‘feelings’. And I bet if this challenge had come from a Dem instead of Cruz her attitude would have been different. This is why Conservative justices are a must – they do their job based on the Constitution, which is what the job IS, not to rule based on their personal feelings,

  2. So the judge Kagans thinks the democrats are squeaky clean huh. Let’s see how many use the law. Guarantee you every one of them. Hypocrites . According to her only the democrats are the ones with the right opinion 🤮🤮🤮


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here