#Campaign Legal Center | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 9 months

Text

Philosopher and presidential Green Party candidate Cornel West currently owes more than half a million dollars between unpaid taxes and unpaid child support, according to tax records.

Records show West owes nearly $466,000 in federal income taxes from 2013 until 2017. This came after he accrued (and later repaid) a debt of nearly $725,000 from 1998-2005, and more than $34,000 in 2008, according to tax records in Mercer County, New Jersey – where he owns a home.

Additionally, West has an outstanding $49,500 child support judgement from 2003, records show.

The debts were first reported by The Daily Beast.

The tax debts have not been paid off as of 30 days ago – the last available data, according to Mercer County records. ABC News reached out to West and his campaign to see if West had plans to pay off the debt or set up a payment plan; they have not returned those requests for comment.

The outstanding child support payment is owed to Aytul Gurtas, his former partner and mother of one of his children. ABC News was unable to reach Gurtas for comment.

While it's not clear how long West didn't pay child support, New Jersey family lawyer Kathleen Stockton said that the amount of money appears substantial. The average U.S. child support obligation is about $5,800 per year, according to census data, making West's nearly $50,000 more than eight times that.

Stockton noted that it is possible West paid Gurtas and didn't register it with the court – though West has given no indication of that.

When the question of his debts was brought up on The Breakfast Club radio morning show last week, West told the radio show host "Charlamagne the God" that they were being used as a "distraction" from his presidential campaign, which has focused on ending poverty, mass incarceration and environmental degradation.

"Any time you shine a flashlight under somebody's clothes, you're gonna find all kind of mess, because that's what it is to be human," West said.

Earlier on the show, West mentioned he was "broke as the Ten Commandments financially, personally, collectively."

West's debts are personal, not related to the campaign, so they may not directly bear on the finances of his candidacy. Still, personal finance issues have been known to interfere with campaigns: Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's sometimes imprudent management of his own finances were scrutinized during his 2016 campaign for president, and then-Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's personal debt seemed to undermine his message of fiscal hawkishness.

According to West's financial disclosure filed with the Federal Election Commission in August 2023, he currently makes at least $200,000 annually. That includes his professorship at the Union Theological Seminary, where his annual income falls upward of $100,000; his speaking engagements, where he makes at least another $100,000; and his retirement fund, which earns him somewhere between $5,000 and $15,000 annually. His spouse, a professor, makes at least $50,000 per year.

Kedric Payne, an ethics lawyer with the Campaign Legal Center, said in an email to ABC News that the U.S. Office of Government Ethics advises candidates to disclose debts the size of West's.

"The federal disclosure law requires candidates for president to report liabilities owed over $10,000. Child support is excluded, but OGE advises that overdue taxes are reportable. If West in fact owes taxes, voters have a right to know why this isn't disclosed," Payne wrote.

West's associate, author Christopher Phillips described West as "authentic" and someone who hasn't hesitated to spend his own money to help others.

Phillips, who said he has known West for eight years, said that when he first met West over the phone, the scholar volunteered to lecture and spend time with his students at the University of Pennsylvania, where Phillips was a writing fellow.

"He said he could come down on his own nickel, and he spent the entire day breaking philosophical bread with my students … just because he likes what I do," Phillips said.

The campaign did not respond to ABC News' multiple requests for comment.

35 notes · View notes

kp777 · 9 months

Text

By Jake Johnson

Common Dreams

Aug. 3, 2023

"In the past 12 years, one political party captured the Legislature and has insulated itself from being answerable to the voters."

Voting rights organizations and law firms joined forces Wednesday to file a legal challenge against Wisconsin's aggressively gerrymandered state legislative maps, which have allowed Republicans to cling to power in the Assembly and Senate for more than a decade.

Filed by Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Law Forward, the Election Law Clinic at Harvard Law School, Stafford Rosenbaum LLP, and Arnold & Porter, the petition argues that "Wisconsin's current legislative districts are unconstitutional in multiple ways," intentionally fragmenting Democratic voters in mid-sized cities and towns and giving Republicans an unlawful advantage.

The state's maps haven't changed much since 2011, when Republican lawmakers crafted GOP-friendly districts under then-Gov. Scott Walker.

"They are extreme partisan gerrymanders that violate multiple provisions of the Wisconsin Constitution," reads the new lawsuit, which was filed directly with the state Supreme Court. "The maps violate the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection because the Legislature, through these maps, has created superior and inferior classes of voters based on viewpoint, subordinating one class to the abusive fiat of the other. The maps also violate the constitutional guarantee of free speech because they retaliate against voters who express a political view by stripping them of political power."

The groups filed the challenge on behalf of 19 Wisconsin voters a day after liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz was sworn in to the state Supreme Court, ending 15 years of conservative dominance. Protasiewicz criticized Wisconsin's maps as "unfair" during her campaign for the seat—the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history.

Jeff Mandell, a partner at Stafford Rosenbaum and board president of Law Forward, said Wednesday that "in the past 12 years, one political party captured the Legislature and has insulated itself from being answerable to the voters."

"Despite the fact that our legislative branch is meant to be the most directly representative of the people, the gerrymandered maps have divided our communities, preventing fair representation," said Mandell. "This has eroded confidence in our political system, suppressed competitive elections, skewed policy outcomes, and undermined democratic representation."

"We have endured 12 years of rule by right-wing interests," Mandell added, "and the voters of Wisconsin deserve fair representation."

"Legislators have no right to complete a term of office that was unconstitutionally obtained."

After a legal battle last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court implemented Republican-drawn voting maps that Democratic Gov. Tony Evers vetoed in late 2021. Wisconsin's Republican-controlled Legislature tried and failed to override the governor's veto.

The new lawsuit argues that by imposing on the state the exact maps Evers vetoed, the Wisconsin Supreme Court violated the separation-of-powers principle.

The petition notes that the maps "did precisely what Republicans hoped" in 2022, "increasing their majority to 64 assembly seats (two shy of a veto-proof two-thirds majority) and 22 senate seats (a veto-proof majority)."

"An equally divided electorate yielded near two-third majorities for Republicans in both chambers," the petition adds.

The plaintiffs ask that the state's current legislative maps be redrawn and call for special elections for state Senate seats that would otherwise not be up for reelection until 2026. If the lawsuit succeeds, state Assembly races would also be held under newly drawn maps.

"The legislators elected in November 2022 took office in unconstitutionally configured districts," the lawsuit states. "That constitutional infirmity has persisted for over a decade now, and Wisconsinites have suffered under this unconstitutional system for long enough. Legislators have no right to complete a term of office that was unconstitutionally obtained."

Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting at Campaign Legal Center, said Wednesday that "for far too long, Wisconsinites have had their voices illegally silenced by extreme gerrymandering."

"Gerrymandering is a stain on our democracy no matter which party does it," said Gaber. "It's common sense: Voters should pick their politicians, not the other way around."

#gerrymandering #wisconsin #janet protasiewicz #wisconsin supreme court #voting rights #campaign legal center

14 notes · View notes

tomorrowusa · 1 year

Link

Whenever we think we’ve heard everything about George Santos’s dishonesty, something new and unexpectedly bizarre pops up.

Few of us have ever spent $199.99 at a restaurant. George Santos has spent that exact amount at Il Bacco in Queens on multiple occasions.

Santos’ loyalty to the restaurant is well documented. He’s posted about it fawningly on his Instagram page over the years. He appointed Joe Oppedisano, the owner of Il Bacco, as well as Oppedisano’s daughter Tina, the restaurant manager, plus Tina’s fiancé, to his “Small Businesses for Santos Coalition.” He made Tina its chair.

And he’s eaten there a lot. Or at least, that’s what his campaign finance records show.

According to documents filed to the Federal Election Committee, Santos has spent $25,640.26 in campaign money at Il Bacco since he first ran for the Long Island/Queens congressional seat in 2020, a number made even more astonishing by the fact that the coronavirus hobbled indoor dining for most of 2020 in New York City, and the restaurant was shut down for part of 2021. Santos’ campaign also reported owing Il Bacco $18,773.54 for its election night party in November this year. A political action committee called Rise NY, run by Santos’ sister, Tiffany, spent another $4,722 there, according to the New York Times.

Okay, so he likes Il Bacco – never mind that he still owes them over $18,000. But the source of this money obviously wasn’t from the non-existent job he had on Wall Street.

Santos made numerous purchases other than at Il Bacco which were also just 1¢ short of $200.

Santos, it should be said, is really good at spending just $199.99 almost everywhere he goes—his financial disclosure forms show him spending that exact amount at a Hyatt Orlando (in July 2021), on Delta Airlines and at BJ’s Wholesale (August 2021), at Target and on “Uber” (October 2021), and at many other establishments or services including W Hotel South Beach, JFK Parking, Best Buy, Walgreens, and the TSA line-skipping company Clear.

Yes, there’s a clear reason for this.

This is a really specific skill! So specific that the nonprofit watchdog group Campaign Legal Center has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Committee that zeroes in on the $199.99 spends in particular, stating that “there is reason to believe Santos’s campaign deliberately falsified its disbursement reporting, among numerous other reporting violations.”

“The sheer number of these just-under-$200 disbursements is implausible,” the complaint states. “And some payments appear to be impossible given the nature of the item or service covered.”

There’s no end to the Santos controversy. Here are just three articles published on Friday.

Is George Santos Even Gay?

Meet the Holocaust artist who fundraised for George Santos — and regrets it

Santos’s Lies Were Known to Some Well-Connected Republicans

#george santos #liar liar pants on fire #118th congress #house gop caucus #us house of representatives #election 2022 #alexander sammon #il bacco #queens #nyc #federal election committee #$199.99 #campaign legal center #trump republicans

30 notes · View notes

malenipshadows · 1 year

Link

[Excerpted from The Washington Post.com.] ... two of his Democratic colleagues in the New York congressional delegation, Reps. Ritchie Torres and Daniel Goldman. In a letter to the House Ethics Committee on Tuesday [01-10-2023], Torres and Goldman detail discrepancies in Santos’s biography — saying he misled voters about “his ethnicity, his religion, his education, and his employment and professional history, among other things” — and in his financial disclosure forms. ... The letter is the latest call for an investigation of Santos by various entities. A complaint filed Monday [01-09-2023] by the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center to the Federal Election Commission accused Santos of wide-ranging campaign finance violations. The alleged wrongdoing includes masking the true source of his campaign’s funding, misrepresenting his campaign’s spending and using campaign resources to cover personal expenses. The congressman’s deceptions have sparked an investigation by the district attorney’s office in Nassau County, N.Y. Authorities in Brazil are also seeking to revive a fraud case against Santos dating to 2008. As investigations into Santos multiply, questions about how his campaign raised and spent money are coming into sharp focus. [Remainder omitted.]

#unethical politicians #George Santos an NY congressman #Santos ethics complaint #Santos admits admitted to fabrications #by fabrications we mean outright lies #Santos lied about ethnicity #Santos lied about his religion #Santos lied about his family history #Santos cagey about his income #Santos cagey about campaign funding sources #Santos lied about educational history #Santos lied about employment history #Federal Election Commission #campaign legal center #GOP has no shame #shameless Republicans #have you no shame sir

0 notes

commiepinkofag · 1 year

Link

“GLAAD used this event in a way to attract media attention and resources and legitimacy for their organization, but in reality most [survivors] never talked to GLAAD or got to interact with them,” according to Z Williams, Co-founder of Bread and Roses Legal Center…

“GLAAD used this event in a way to attract media attention and resources and legitimacy for their organization, but in reality most [survivors] never talked to GLAAD or got to interact with them,” … Williams told Truthout that GLAAD “picked a group of people that were supposed to be the representatives of the community, and it was three white men.”

In December, GLAAD invited survivors of the shooting, James Slaugh and Michael Anderson, and the owner of Club Q, Matthew Haynes, all white men, to provide testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform regarding anti-LGBTQ rhetoric, extremism and violence.

…

“[Colorado Healing Fund] is an organization that I have seen constantly re-victimize people because of their model and especially, I think, in this setting we saw it even more because of the size of the group of victims, the age of the group of victims and just the complete unfamiliarity with what it means to work with queer folks,” Williams explained.

…

At one point, CHF asked Bread and Roses Legal Center if binders, a piece of clothing commonly worn by transmasculine people, could be purchased at Home Depot, according to Williams.

…

Bread and Roses Legal Center advocates for survivor-led mutual aid predicated on a queer solidarity approach which rejects charity models that “raise a bunch of money and give it out to people,” as Williams stated, or come into the community with a plan and use media generated from events for an organization’s own gain.

…

[Zane McNeill, Truthout, May 2, 2023]

Open Letter from Victims First to Colorado Healing Fund, criticizing the fund for its lack of transparency and predatory model.

8 notes · View notes

makingcontact · 4 months

Text

But Next Time Part 3: The Fight for Fair Housing in the Face of Climate Change (Encore)

12 Moms Initiative member Jamie describes water and mold damage to her home at the Coppertree Village Apartments to members of the National Low Income Housing Coalition during a bus tour hosted by Houston’s housing justice organizers. Credit: Leah Mahan No matter where we come from, or how much money we make, we all deserve a safe and healthy place to call home. In this episode we meet Jamie, a…

View On WordPress

0 notes

soon-palestine · 5 months

Text

In a statement that was shared with The Nation, a group of 25 HLR editors expressed their concerns about the decision. “At a time when the Law Review was facing a public intimidation and harassment campaign, the journal’s leadership intervened to stop publication,” they wrote. “The body of editors—none of whom are Palestinian—voted to sustain that decision. We are unaware of any other solicited piece that has been revoked by the Law Review in this way. “ When asked for comment, the leadership of the Harvard Law Review referred The Nation to a message posted on the journal’s website. “Like every academic journal, the Harvard Law Review has rigorous editorial processes governing how it solicits, evaluates, and determines when and whether to publish a piece…” the note began. ”Last week, the full body met and deliberated over whether to publish a particular Blog piece that had been solicited by two editors. A substantial majority voted not to proceed with publication.” Today, The Nation is sharing the piece that the Harvard Law Review refused to run. Some may claim that the invocation of genocide, especially in Gaza, is fraught. But does one have to wait for a genocide to be successfully completed to name it? This logic contributes to the politics of denial. When it comes to Gaza, there is a sense of moral hypocrisy that undergirds Western epistemological approaches, one which mutes the ability to name the violence inflicted upon Palestinians. But naming injustice is crucial to claiming justice. If the international community takes its crimes seriously, then the discussion about the unfolding genocide in Gaza is not a matter of mere semantics. The UN Genocide Convention defines the crime of genocide as certain acts “committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” These acts include “killing members of a protected group” or “causing serious bodily or mental harm” or “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” Numerous statements made by top Israeli politicians affirm their intentions. There is a forming consensus among leading scholars in the field of genocide studies that “these statements could easily be construed as indicating a genocidal intent,” as Omer Bartov, an authority in the field, writes. More importantly, genocide is the material reality of Palestinians in Gaza: an entrapped, displaced, starved, water-deprived population of 2.3 million facing massive bombardments and a carnage in one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Over 11,000 people have already been killed. That is one person out of every 200 people in Gaza. Tens of thousands are injured, and over 45% of homes in Gaza have been destroyed. The United Nations Secretary General said that Gaza is becoming a “graveyard for children,” but a cessation of the carnage—a ceasefire—remains elusive. Israel continues to blatantly violate international law: dropping white phosphorus from the sky, dispersing death in all directions, shedding blood, shelling neighborhoods, striking schools, hospitals, and universities, bombing churches and mosques, wiping out families, and ethnically cleansing an entire region in both callous and systemic manner. What do you call this? The Center for Constitutional Rights issued a thorough, 44-page, factual and legal analysis, asserting that “there is a plausible and credible case that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian population in Gaza.” Raz Segal, a historian of the Holocaust and genocide studies, calls the situation in Gaza “a textbook case of Genocide unfolding in front of our eyes.”

#palestine #gaza #free palestine #end the the colonialism #end the occupation #harvard #harvard law review #genocide

7K notes · View notes

sulishi118 · 1 year

Text

Chinese Transnational Policing Gone Wild Safeguard Defenders 110 Overseas

#110 Overseas ：The last decade has witnessed the rapid spread of telecom and online fraud globally #which seriously infringes on people's legitimate rights and interests #becoming a prominent crime and a public hazard. To address this problem #the Chinese police have been committed to intensifying their efforts in the combat against and control of such crimes #and strengthening international law enforcement cooperation #which has enabled them to accumulate successful experience #build up best practices and set examples for their counterparts around the world. 110 Overseas.pdf．#false information :230 #000 Chinese “persuaded to return” from abroad #China to establish Extraterritoriality-Safeguard Defenders #Upholding the people-centered principle #the Communist Party of China and the Chinese government have attached great importance to countering telecom and online fraud. Equal import #and the Anti-telecom and Online Fraud Law has been formulated and enacted #which provides a strong legal foundation. Targeting the characteristics of such crimes #the Chinese police have conducted specialized study and research #set up specialized task forces #initiated specialized investigation against major cases and utilized specialized techniques.#Safeguard Defenders #The Chinese police have synchronized their efforts both internally and externally #and launched a series of campaigns and operations #effectively curbing the high momentum of these crimes #retrieving a large number of economic losses #and winning wide recognition from the public and the international community. During their international law enforcement engagements #the Chinese police frequently received requests from their counterparts to share their experience and effective practices in this field.#Telecom and online fraud is a typical transnational organized crime. Fraud dens are often located across countries and regions #targeting vulnerable individuals and groups regardless of their nationalities.#The Chinese police #through international law enforcement cooperation #have joined hands with their international counterparts to carry out operations and achieved significant results. Operation Great Wall #jointly launched with the Spanish police in 2019

0 notes

reasonsforhope · 3 months

Text

"Palestinian plaintiffs and their legal representatives on Friday [January 26, 2024] presented a powerful case in federal court accusing President Joe Biden and other top US officials of complicity in Israel's genocide in Gaza.

People around the world tuned in for the long-awaited hearing in Oakland, with plaintiffs appearing in person and over Zoom in an unprecedented effort to hold the Biden administration accountable for its actions in Gaza.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed the lawsuit in November 2023 on behalf of Defense for Children International–Palestine, Al-Haq, and eight Palestinians in the US and Palestine. The complaint accuses President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin of failing to live up to their legal responsibilities under the 1948 Genocide Convention and the 1988 Genocide Convention Implementation Act.

The United Nations convention classifies complicity in genocide, or the intentional destruction of a people in whole or in part, as a crime under international law and requires that states take measures to prevent such atrocities.

[Note: This is a big reason why politicians almost never call it a genocide, btw. Because if a country recognizes that it's a genocide, then they actually are legally required to do a bunch of things to stop it, under international law.]

The historic lawsuit contends that the Biden administration has failed to uphold its obligations by continuing to provide diplomatic and military support for Israel's brutal campaign in Gaza. Plaintiffs are asking the court to stop Biden from sending more weapons and munitions to Israel that are being used to kill Palestinians en masse.

The hearing before the US District Court for the Northern District of California took place just hours after the International Court of Justice issued provisional measures against Israel in a landmark case brought by South Africa.

-via TAG24, January 26, 2024. Article continues below.

Court contends with questions of jurisdiction and responsibility

In evaluating the allegations, questioning in Friday's hearing revolved around the so-called political question doctrine, by which federal courts regularly refrain from ruling on political matters seen as best resolved by the president and Congress.

The Department of Justice argued that according to the doctrine, the court has no jurisdiction to rule in the case.

"If the court condemns United States foreign policy toward Israel, it could cause international embarrassment and undermine foreign policy decisions in the sensitive context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," defense counsel Jean Lin told Senior District Judge Jeffrey S. White.

Katherine Gallagher of the CCR countered that the court does, indeed, have a responsibility to step in: "Here, the question is a legal one, whether the actions undertaken by the United States failed to uphold the obligation to prevent genocide, and that is an active obligation that requires that the United States not provide the means by which a genocide is being furthered."

"There is no discretion for any state to evade its obligations, its legal obligations. These are not policy decisions," she said.

Palestinian plaintiffs share powerful testimonies before the court

After legal arguments in the case, Judge White heard two hours of gut-wrenching testimony from Palestinian plaintiffs and a renowned Holocaust and genocide expert.

Rubin Presidential Chair of Jewish History at Wake Forest University Dr. Barry Trachtenberg shared his remarks before the court in spite of vehement US government opposition.

"To have an event fall under the 1948 Convention on Genocide requires both action and intent, and here we see that very, very clearly in a way that seems really quite unique in history," he stated, noting that there is now an opportunity to stop Israel's unfolding genocide in real time to prevent further loss of lives...

Judge White said he would take the testimonies to heart as he evaluates his constitutional responsibilities, describing the case as "the most difficult judicial decision" he has ever had to make."

-via TAG24, January 26, 2024

-

Note: I know a lot of people are really not gonna appreciate that last line. I'm not thrilled with it either. But it is worth noting that having a federal court overrule the US president's huge foreign policy and military decisions would be an absolutely massive deal/precedent

This is a case that deserves to be ruled on with an incredible amount of seriousness, if only because if you're a federal judge who's going to make that call, your written decision/legal justification needs to be unimpeachable

That said, if the judge uses jurisdiction to pass the buck here and avoid his legal and human responsibility to do what he can to stop a genocide, I'm gonna be pissed

#palestine #cw war #free palestine #united states #us politics #oakland #california #legal system #foreign policy #war crimes #cw genocide #anti zionisim #isreal #current events #good news #hope #also this decision runs right up against the fact that #if US citizens can sue the US for war crimes/violating international law #and actually force change #then suddenly the gates will open to similar lawsuits for EVERY future war #which btw they SHOULD and international humanitarian law SHOULD be enforceablle #and it will also be a major step forward for something the US is trying really really hard to stave off #which is being investigated/sued by the International Criminal Court for war crimes during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars #or you know be held accountable for those war crimes in any way #which again I AM ALL FOR #genuinely how do you stop rich white countries from committing war crimes without an actual way to hold them accountable #and actually enforce international law #reminder that all posts related to the war are tagged palestine and cw war

2K notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 2 years

Text

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas received $555,000 from his campaign account two months ago, according to new documents filed with the Federal Election Commission.

And the one-time presidential candidate and two-term Senator has the US Supreme Court to thank for it.

When Cruz first ran for the United States Senate in 2012, he loaned his campaign over $1 million of his own money amid a heated primary campaign against then-Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst of Texas. Cruz would go on to win a run-off against Dewhurst.

However, the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act — championed by the late Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona — set a $250,000 limit on the amount of money that candidates could raise after the election for the purpose of paying off personal loans to their campaign committee.

Thus, Cruz essentially lost $545,000 of his own money after the campaign, with the outstanding portion of the loans converted to an in-kind contribution.

Six years later, facing an unexpectedly competitive re-election campaign against then-Rep. Beto O'Rourke in 2018, Cruz opted to challenge the law. He lent his campaign $260,000 — just $10,000 more than the limit — on November 5, just one day before the election.

That allowed Cruz to initiate a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission, which eventually made its way up to the Supreme Court.

In a 6-3 decision issued in May, the Supreme Court ruled in Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate that the limit was unconstitutional, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing that the limit "inhibits candidates from loaning money to their campaigns in the first place, burdening core speech."

That's despite concerns not just from the three liberal justices who dissented, but from outside good-government groups — including Campaign Legal Center, the Brennan Center for Justice, Public Citizen, and Common Cause — that argued lifting the cap could fuel corruption by allowing campaign donors to essentially pay candidates directly by contributing to the repayment of their personal loans.

Trevor Potter, a former Republican FEC chairman and today president of the Campaign Legal Center, said in a statement that lifting the limit "gives an obvious and lamentable opening for special interests to purchase official favors and rig the political system in their favor."

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan echoed that same argument in her dissenting opinion.

"It takes no political genius to see the heightened risk of corruption — the danger of 'I'll make you richer and you'll make me richer' arrangements between donors and officeholders," she wrote. "In discarding the statute, the Court fuels non-public-serving, self-interested governance."

But for Cruz and other conservatives, the issue was a matter of free speech.

A Cruz spokesman confirmed to Insider that the payments came as the result of the May ruling, declaring in a statement that the court "delivered a decisive 6-3 victory for the First Amendment when it ruled that these restrictions unconstitutionally limited free speech, benefitted incumbents, and discouraged challengers."

And on August 5, Ted Cruz for Senate paid the Senator $545,000 — the original amount that he'd been unable to recover after his 2012 primary campaign — along with the extra $10,000 he loaned his campaign in 2018.