Supreme Court to Hear Ted Cruz Campaign Funding Challenge


Mr Cruz’s lawyers responded that the campaign owed more money than it had on hand on polling day and that it was entitled to pay vendors rather than reimburse Mr Cruz for contributions. pre-election.

“Cruz has the right to lend money to his campaign under the First Amendment without government restrictions on the amount and duration of repayment,” the senator’s lawyers wrote in their brief in the case, Federal Election Commission vs. Ted Cruz for the Senate, n ° 21. -12. “That Cruz could have avoided his loss of $ 10,000 by refusing to lend his campaign more than $ 250,000, or by demanding full repayment within 20 days, does not change the fact that he suffered a loss of 10 $ 000 by exercising his constitutional right to grant the loan which He made. “

The Supreme Court also agreed Thursday to decide whether Boston has the right to deny a request to hoist a flag bearing a Christian cross on one of the three flagpoles outside its city hall. This pole, which usually carries the city’s flag, is sometimes replaced with another for a limited time after an approval process.

During a 12-year period ending in 2017, “the city approved 284 flag-raising events involving its third pole,” according to a unanimous panel of three judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the first circuit, in Boston.

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

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

The group continued, saying the city’s decision violated, among other things, its right to free speech. The appeals court ruled for the city, largely on the grounds that the government has the right to choose which posts it approves.

Source link


About Author

Comments are closed.