Cruz may soon win his decade-long fight to legalize donations that personally enrich politicians.
Congress enacted this provision because without it, politicians can exploit a loophole for personal gain. When donors contribute money before an election, federal law requires its use on genuine campaign activities. That’s one reason the Supreme Court considers political contributions to be “speech”: They must, in theory, be used for expressive purposes. But when donors contribute money after an election to help the candidate repay a campaign loan, that cash goes straight to the politician.
, politicians can actually make a profit by charging extortionist interest rates on personal loans. Democratic Rep. Grace Napolitano did exactly that before Congress cracked down on this stratagem, netting $72,000 in interest on a $150,000 loan.Postelection contributions are fundamentally different from those made during the race.
corruption” or its “appearance.” And donating to the winner after his victory can look pretty corrupt. As the Justice Department, a postelection donor “usually will know whether the recipient of the contribution has prevailed in the election” and “will be in a position to do him official favors.” It’s this difference “between a bet and a bet on a sure thing” that amplifies the risk of corruption.