If the law is a benefit to an incumbent, why did one of the most incumbent guys of all - Ted Cruz - decide to make this challenge? Didn't he know he'd be screwing himself?
My guess is that Cruz wants to make sure people like Donald Trump can get into politics. Plus Cruz is pretty solid on his support of the Constitution and this agency rule and the law that was behind it were blatantly anti-first amendment.
That would be quite the coincidence. Of course it would be completely irrelevant as the lobbyist is still subject to the cap of $2900 per election cycle.
...
I bet that coincidence happens in the next election cycle. Assuming we can learn about it. The SC may remove many financial disclosures. Or allow groups that don't have financial disclosures to donate to candidates.
Why would they? Neither of those rules touches on anything remotely to do with their opinion on this matter. Why not pick more nonsense out of the air and ascribe it to potential future decisions?
Wealthy guy A can donate $2900, and all the 501c3 he donates to anonymously can give another $2900. And if you are like postmaster general Louis DeJoy you can direct and give bonuses to your employees to give money to the right candidates. Hey its against the law, but if his profile hadn't been raised quite so high and hadn't given up direct control of his companies maybe no one ever decides to speak out. At will employment makes ratting on the boss a dicey proposition. And the difference between pre and post election is that giving after the election means you are giving money essentially directly to the candidate (to repay their loans) to someone who has already won the election. Its like spending your campaign dollars on a sure bet.
Well except that you're quite wrong about what actually happened, and your position completely ignores that the rule also applied to the
loser of the election. There's absolutely no legitimate anti-corruption purpose served by preventing the loser recovering the loan amount.
It's also stunning that you give as "examples" situations that are illegal (boss ordering employees to donate). You literally already have a law against that, this law had nothing to do with addressing that situation.
So if your concern is that a single person can abuse the campaign finance limits by using charities fix that loophole (of course, it's not the 501c3's generally that should concern you as they can't make a campaign contribution in the first place).
Again, the constraint here is not an abstract. Fundamentally allowing repayment of the loans from pre-victory proceeds and from $250k of post victory proceeds already more than opened the door you seem to be concerned about. If a candidate has an outstanding loan to themselves prior to the election and they look like a shoe-in, there's pretty much the same incentive you're concerned about to donate prior to the victory. The same gratitude and all.
The reality here is that incumbents start with an advantage of hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars of carry over. They can role extra money from the last election, and every dollar that comes in late into the next election. They generally have access to mega donors, party mechanisms and their own networks. The idea that they are less corrupt than a rich person loaning their campaign money is kind of insane. And when you have a rule that barely slows an avenue of corruption, but does so in a way that protects incumbents, it's not legit.
