After his 2018 reelection campaign, Senator Ted Cruz filed a lawsuit challenging Section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) which imposes a $250,000 limit on the amount of post-election contributions that a campaign may use to repay debt owed to the candidate when he or she lends money to his or her own campaign. On Monday, the Supreme Court delivered a victory to Senator Cruz, holding that:

Cruz and the Committee have standing to challenge the threatened enforcement of Section 304 of BCRA. We also conclude that this provision burdens core political speech without proper justification.

Republicans want elections to be open, fair and honest.  Democrats see politics as an issue to incite their base.  When House Republicans had control of Congress in 2017-18 they made their top legislative priority tax reform for all Americans.  In contrast, Democrats made protecting incumbent Democrat members of Congress their top legislative priority through trying to change election laws.  Historically election reforms have passed on an bipartisan basis but the Democrats' HR 1 did not get a single Republican vote. 

Now their narrative on election law is falling apart.  Democrats have long bemoaned the role of money in politics.  They have said that billionaires buy elections.  Yet, Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton despite being badly outspent.  But that example pales in comparison to the recent Democrat primary.  As the Wall Street Journal editorializes:

So much for the progressive meme about “buying elections.” Federal disclosures Monday finally revealed the full bill for Mike Bloomberg’s Democratic primary bid: more than $1 billion, for hardly three months of official campaigning. For comparison, that’s more than either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton spent during the whole of the 2016 race.

Today, the RNLA filed a Federal Election Commission complaint against Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg and Bloomberg News, alleging that the way that Bloomberg News has announced that it will cover the presidential campaign constitutes an impermissible in-kind corporate contribution that is not subject to the media exemption.

While Democrats and liberal pundits would have us believe otherwise, there was no violation of campaign finance laws in President Trump’s July 25 call with the Ukrainian President.  Like so much in the campaign finance realm, Democrats are attempting to apply an interpretation of the law against foreign campaign contributions as they wish it were, instead of the law as written or how it has been interpreted to date.

This past month, Democrat Representative Joaquin Castro released the names of Trump donors in San Antonio in a heated tweet claiming they are “fueling a campaign of hate.”

In natural form, the liberal mob immediately went on attack and began harassing these people.

It’s hard to imagine a scenario where Rep. Castro did not intend for the donors to be harassed. Why else would he publicly chastise them?

On Wednesday, Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s former personal attorney, was sentenced to three years in prison as part of a plea bargain with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Michael Cohen plead guilty to eight counts of financial crimes: tax fraud (five counts), making false statements to a financial institution, unlawful corporation contributions, and excessive campaign contributions. Although he plead guilty to counts of unlawful corporation contributions and excessive campaign contributions, it does not mean that what happened was illegal; therefore, he plead guilty to something that was not a federal crime. It is evident that the U.S. Attorney’s office is taking an overaggressive approach, especially since they might have violated their own Justice Department’s policy.