U.S. Supreme Court allows politicians to get the donors to cover their own personal campaign “debts”

The American Dream is dying, one step at the time. Senator Ethan Roark Jr. of Sin City is becoming the norm of society. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas did deliberately violating campaign finance laws just so he could petition the courts and get the laws changed. He has achieved his mission and by doing so. The donors, the corporations and the Public Action Committee’s (PACs) can circumvent certain stipulations and indirectly pay a candidate. Therefore, the candidate or politician will be beholden to their interests and in the end… not work for the citizens, but for the companies, lobbyists and other interests groups who is paying for their campaign.

The United States of America isn’t getting any better, but only turning worse. The Supreme Court is using benign reasoning. Calling it a political speech to loan money to fund their own campaigns. While we know the loans will be paid by the donors and beneficiaries of the candidates in question. This is ensuring the corporate candidates and the ones who serve certain industries to get massive funding, which will be pocketed by the candidate itself.

A candidate can take out a loan to his/hers own campaign of a ONE MILLION US Dollars and after the campaigns the His/Hers for House/Senate can cover these debts with interests, which goes straight into the account of the politician. That is self-serving and free money, a bribe that ensures the interests of the companies or industries are taken care off. So, it is so weird that this getting allowed, but shows what the Supreme Court really believes in.

Here’s the vital information:

The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Monday continued a decades long dismantling of federal campaign finance limits in a divided decision in favor of Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. The 6-3 ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., struck down Section 304 of the 2002 federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that limited post-election contributions to repay a candidate’s personal campaign loans” (Zack Needles – ‘Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz Wins Federal Campaign Finance Limits Case Before U.S. Supreme Court’ 16.05.2022, Texas Lawyer, Law.com).

For the reasons set forth, we conclude 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. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed” (Federal Election Committee Versus Ted Cruz for Senate, May 16, 2022).

The next U.S. elections the campaigns can get vast loans from the candidates themselves. While later cash-that-in, as they are fundraising and getting donor funds from various of sources. All of these sources and lobbyists are doing so for their interests and policy needs. Therefore, we all know the gist of this.

The U.S. elections and campaign funding is already a corporate white-wash of funding. This is just tripling down and ensuring a “sign-on-fee” for politicians, which is only have been known for athletes. If not it is securing a means for an advance by “loaning” to your own campaign and getting a donor to cover the “debt”. So, in return the candidate will cash-in and get refunded this as personal revenue.

Ted Cruz and the current Supreme Court has made it possible for the rich candidates to enrich themselves on their own campaigns. In some regards, the way and manner of which they are elected has now also become a cash-grab for the wealthy representatives of Washington D.C. The Republican’s are clearing the swamp, but creating a bigger one. Where they are destroying the rules and opening up all avenues for creating personal wealth. While they are hoping the public doesn’t see or doesn’t care. Because, this is just a way of gaining more money on the job. Since the campaigns are part of the lifestyle and needs to get elected into office. Now the way of getting the job is also a possible way of getting vast profits. This is defended by need of political speech.

So, in the minds of the Supreme Court moving money from one account to another is a sign of political speech. Clearly, the banks of JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, CitiGroup and such will be really happy about this. They don’t even need to get this politicians to hold speeches and get paid. No, they can just donate funds, which will cover the “debts” of the candidates and that will go right into the pocket of whoever they deem fit for their cause. Peace.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: