Supreme Court to Hear Ted Cruz’s Campaign Finance Challenge

Mr. Cruz’s lawyers responded that the campaign owed more money than it had on hand on Election Day and that it was entitled to pay vendors rather than repay Mr. Cruz from pre-election contributions.

“Cruz has a First Amendment right to loan money to his campaign free from governmental restrictions as to amount and time of repayment,” the senator’s lawyers wrote in their brief in the case, Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate, No. 21-12. “That Cruz could have avoided his $10,000 loss by refusing to loan his campaign more than $250,000, or by requiring repayment in full within 20 days, does not change the fact that he suffered a $10,000 injury by exercising his constitutional right to make the loan that he did.”

The Supreme Court also agreed on Thursday to decide whether Boston was entitled to turn down a request to raise a flag bearing a Christian cross on one of the three flagpoles in front of its City Hall. That flagpole, which ordinarily flies the city’s flag, is occasionally replaced by a different one for a limited time after an approval process.

In a 12-year period ending in 2017, “the city approved 284 flag-raising events that implicated its third flagpole,” according to a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Boston.

“These events,” Judge Bruce M. Selya wrote, “were in connection with ethnic and other cultural celebrations, the arrival of dignitaries from other countries, the commemoration of historic events in other countries and the celebration of certain causes” like gay pride.

In 2017, the city rejected a request from Camp Constitution, a group that says it seeks “to enhance understanding of the country’s Judeo-Christian moral heritage,” which said it sought to raise a “Christian flag” at an event that included “short speeches by some local clergy focusing on Boston’s history.”

The group sued, saying the city’s decision violated, among other things, its right to free speech. The appeals court ruled for the city, largely on the ground that the government is entitled to choose the messages it endorses.

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *