Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-12_m6hn.pdf
Page Number: 23.0

18  FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N v. TED CRUZ FOR SENATE 

Opinion of the Court 

which  Congress  may  regulate,  or  simply  increased  influ-
ence and access, which Congress may not.

Finally,  the  Government  places  great  weight  on  state-
ments  made  by  certain  Members  of  Congress  during  de-
bates that preceded the enactment of BCRA.  One Senator, 
for  example,  remarked  that  without  the  loan-repayment
limitation,  a  winning  candidate  who  loaned  money  to  his 
campaign  could  “get  it  back  from  [his]  constituents  [at]
fundraising  events”  where  he  could  ask,  “How  would  you 
like me to vote now that I am a Senator?”  147 Cong. Rec.
S2462 (March 19, 2001) (remarks  of Sen. Domenici).  An-
other stated that candidates “have a constitutional right to 
try to buy the office, but they do not have a constitutional
right to resell it.”  147 Cong. Rec. S2541 (March 20, 2001) 
(remarks  of  Sen.  Hutchison).    Nothing  these  legislators 
said, however, constitutes actual evidence that the loan-re-
payment limitation was necessary to prevent quid pro quo
corruption or its appearance.  And a few stray floor state-
ments are not the same as “legislative findings” that might
suggest  a  special  problem  to  be  addressed.    Colorado  Re-
publican Federal Campaign Comm., 518 U. S., at 618. 

All the above is pretty meager, given that we are consid-
ering restrictions on “the most fundamental First Amend-
ment activities”—the right of candidates for political office
to  make  their  case  to  the  American  people.  Buckley,  434 
U. S., at 14.  In any event, the legislative record helps ap-
pellees just as much as the Government, given that some
Senators evidently viewed the limit as designed to protect 
incumbents like themselves from wealthy challengers.  See 
147  Cong.  Rec.  S2465  (March  19,  2001)  (remarks  of  Sen.
Sessions) (“[Section 304] prohibits wealthy candidates, who 
incur personal loans in connection with their campaign that
exceed $250,000, from repaying those loans from any con-
tributions made to the candidate. . . .  I am glad I didn’t face
a person who could write a check for $60 million, $10 mil-
lion—or $5 million, for that matter.  If so, I would like to be