Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-12_m6hn.pdf
Page Number: 6

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 21–12 
_________________ 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, APPELLANT v. 
TED CRUZ FOR SENATE, ET AL. 

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

[May 16, 2022] 

CHIEF  JUSTICE  ROBERTS  delivered  the  opinion  of  the 

Court. 

In  order  to  jumpstart  a  fledgling  campaign  or  finish
strong in a tight race, candidates for federal office often loan 
money to their campaign committees.  A provision of federal
law regulates the repayment of such loans.  Among other
things, it bars campaigns from using more than $250,000 of 
funds raised after election day to repay a candidate’s per-
sonal loans.  This limit on the use of post-election funds in-
creases the risk that candidate loans over $250,000 will not 
be  repaid  in  full,  inhibiting  candidates  from  making  such
loans  in  the  first  place.    The  question  is  whether  this  re-
striction violates the First Amendment rights of candidates 
and their campaigns to engage in political speech. 

I 
A 

Candidates for federal office may, consistent with federal 
law, use various sources to fund their campaigns.  A candi-
date may spend an unlimited amount of his own money in 
support of his campaign.  See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 
52–54  (1976)  (per  curiam).  His  campaign—a  legal  entity