Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-12_m6hn.pdf
Page Number: 11

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

Opinion of the Court 

20 days of the election.  But even if such funds were availa-
ble,  the  Government’s  argument  largely  misses  the  point.
For standing purposes, we accept as valid the merits of ap-
pellees’  legal  claims,  so  we  must  assume  that  the  loan- 
repayment  limitation—including  the  20-day  rule—uncon-
stitutionally  burdens  speech.  See  Warth  v.  Seldin,  422 
U. S. 490, 500 (1975) (“standing in no way depends on the 
merits of the plaintiff ’s contention that particular conduct
is  illegal”).  Demanding  that  the  Committee  comply  with 
the  Government’s  “alternative”  would  therefore  require  it 
to forgo the exercise of a First Amendment right we must
assume it has—the right to repay its campaign debts in full,
at any time.  And this would require the Committee to sub-
ject itself to the very framework it says unconstitutionally 
burdens its speech.  Such a principle finds no support in our 
standing jurisprudence.  See, e.g., Susan B. Anthony List v. 
Driehaus, 573 U. S. 149, 158–159 (2014). 

B 
The  Government  next  asserts  that  although  appellees
would have standing to challenge the FEC’s implementing
regulation, 11 CFR §116.11, they do not have standing to
challenge  Section  304  itself.  As  a  reminder,  Section  304 
prohibits  the  use  of  post-election  funds  to  repay  a  candi-
date’s personal loans; it does not restrict the use of funds
raised before the election.  See 52 U. S. C. §30116(j).  That 
restriction comes instead from Section 304’s implementing 
regulation, 11 CFR §116.11.  This regulation provides that
neither pre-election nor post-election funds may be used to 
repay candidate loans above $250,000 outstanding 20 days 
after the election.  §§116.11(c)(1)–(2).  Such amounts must 
instead  be  treated  as  contributions  to  the  campaign,  bar-
ring their repayment. 

Bearing that in mind, the Government contends that the
record before the District Court reveals that the Committee 
used  funds  raised  before  the  election  to  repay  the  first