Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Supreme Court continues to chip away at campaign finance laws

Sen. Ted Cruz and Judge Amy Coney Barrett
Sen. Ted Cruz meets with Judge Amy Coney Barrett prior to her Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 2020. Barrett joined the majority that ruled in Cruz's favor Monday.
Pool/Getty Images

On Monday, the Supreme Court struck down a federal anti-bribery law, with the conservative majority saying the restrictions imposed by Congress constitute a violation of candidates’ First Amendment right to free speech.

This case, known as FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate, opens the door for candidates to raise unlimited sums after an election ends in order to repay personal loans to their campaigns. In 2001, Congress capped the amount that can be repaid to candidates using post-election fundraising at $250,000 to prevent wealthy individuals and lobbyists from essentially giving money to lawmakers, including some who profited off the loans by charging their own campaigns interest.

The Supreme Court has a mixed history in its rulings on campaign finance cases. While the court has upheld some of the basic underpinnings of election law, it has also ripped up others. While spending on political campaigns has exploded, advocacy groups have stepped up their efforts to achieve further reforms in the name of fighting corruption.

According to the court tracker Oyez, the Supreme Court has handled nearly 30 cases related to campaign finance since 1957. Here are some of the most influential decisions that have either bolstered the rules or tossed them in the trash.


Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

In 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act, a post-Watergate law putting into place many of the modern regulations governing campaign financing, including contribution limits and reporting requirements.

Five years later, the Supreme Court considered whether the restrictions imposed by FECA violated the First Amendment, issuing a divided ruling.

The justices decided that capping an individual’s contributions to political campaigns and candidates "served the government's interest in safeguarding the integrity of elections” and therefore did not run afoul of the Constitution. However, any limits on spending by campaigns violates the freedoms of speech and association.

The decision served another purpose, dividing political advertising into “express advocacy,” which explicitly endorses or opposes candidates for office, and “issue advocacy,” which addresses issues rather than candidates. The court rules that independent ads that fall into the express advocacy category are subject to federal disclosure requirements, but issue advocacy spending is exempt.

Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000)

The 1976 Buckley decision permitted the government, through the Federal Election Commission, to set caps on donations to federal campaigns. Twenty-four years later, the court addressed donation limits in state campaigns, permitting Missouri to institute a cap of its own.

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003)

In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which banned soft money, unregulated donations to political organizations for “party building” activities rather than candidate advocacy.

The Supreme Court upheld BCRA, determining there was a link between large, soft-money donations and corruption, or at least the appearance of corruption.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

This is the case most often cited by advocates for greater regulation of campaign financing who believe it has opened the floodgates for corruption.

In addition to barring soft money, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibited campaigns from running ads mentioning candidates on broadcast, cable and satellite services within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

The FEC, under the guidance of the BCRA, prevented the conservative advocacy nonprofit Citizens United from running an anti-Hillary Clinton movie during the 2008 campaign.

After upholding part of BCRA in 2003, the court struck down this restriction, ruling that the First Amendment allows corporate funding of independent political broadcasts. The justices did leave intact a provision that requires electioneering communication to include disclaimers and disclosure of sponsors.

The Citizens United ruling would be applied to another case that same year. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the caps on individuals’ contribution to super PACs, politically active not-for-profits, unions and other groups that make independent expenditures.

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014)

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act faced yet another challenge in 2014. That law set a total limit that individuals may give to candidates, parties and political action committees in each two-year election cycle.

While leaving intact the limits on donations to each campaign, party or committee, the Supreme Court struck down the aggregate limits, saying those caps do not prevent corruption and are unconstitutional.

Wealthy individuals may now donate unlimited sums to political organizations, and the ruling paved the way for the creation of joint fundraising committees, through which campaigns and parties raise money together and split the proceeds.

This ruling opened up opportunities for wealthy donors to give to as many political entities as they want. It also led to the creation of joint fundraising committees — partnerships in which campaigns and party committees collect one large check from each donor and split the proceeds.

Read More

Could Trump’s campaign against the media come back to bite conservatives?

US President Donald Trump reacts next to Erika Kirk, widow of Charlie Kirk, after speaking at the public memorial service for right-wing activist Charlie Kirk at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, on September 21, 2025.

(Photo by Mandel NGAN / AFP) (Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images)

Could Trump’s campaign against the media come back to bite conservatives?

In the wake of Jimmy Kimmel’sapparently temporary— suspension from late-night TV, a (tragically small) number of prominent conservatives and Republicans have taken exception to the Trump administration’s comfort with “jawboning” critics into submission.

Sen. Ted Cruz condemned the administration’s “mafioso behavior.” He warned that “going down this road, there will come a time when a Democrat wins again — wins the White House … they will silence us.” Cruz added during his Friday podcast. “They will use this power, and they will use it ruthlessly. And that is dangerous.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A stethoscope lying on top of credit cards.

Enhanced health care tax credits expire at the end of 2025 unless Congress acts. Learn who benefits, what’s at risk, and how premiums could rise without them.

Getty Images, yavdat

Just the Facts: What Happens If Enhanced Health Care Tax Credits End in 2025

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

There’s been a lot in the news lately about healthcare costs going up on Dec. 31 unless congress acts. What are the details?

The enhanced health care premium tax credits (ePTCs) are set to expire at the end of 2025 unless Congress acts to extend them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Bill Spotlight: No Social Media at School Act

Rep. Angie Craig’s No Social Media at School Act would ban TikTok, Instagram & Snapchat during K-12 school hours. See what’s in the bill.

Getty Images, Daniel de la Hoz

Congress Bill Spotlight: No Social Media at School Act

Gen Z’s worst nightmare: TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat couldn’t be used during school hours.

What the bill does

Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN2) introduced the No Social Media at School Act, which would require social media companies to use “geofencing” to block access to their products on K-12 school grounds during school hours.

Keep ReadingShow less
A portrait of John Adams.

John Adams warned that without virtue, republics collapse. Today, billionaire spending and unchecked wealth test whether America can place the common good above private gain.

John Adams Warned Us: A Republic Without Virtue Cannot Survive

John Adams understood a truth that feels even sharper today: a republic cannot endure without virtue. Writing to Mercy Otis Warren in April 1776, he warned that public Virtue cannot exist in a Nation without [private virtue], and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics.” For Adams, liberty would not be preserved by clever constitutions alone. It depended on citizens who could restrain their selfish impulses for the sake of the common good.

That insight has lost none of its force. Some people do restrain themselves. They accumulate enough to live well and then turn to service, family, or community. Others never stop. Given the chance, they gather wealth and power without limit. Left unchecked, selfishness concentrates material and social resources in the hands of a few, leaving many behind and eroding the sense of shared citizenship on which democracy depends.

Keep ReadingShow less