Previous 23 / 54 Next

Cite as: 533 U. S. 431 (2001) Opinion of the Court electing particular candidates. The money parties spend comes from contributors with their own personal interests. PACs, for example, are frequent party contributors who (according to one of the Party's own experts) "do not pursue the same objectives in electoral politics" that parties do. App. 180 (statement of Professor Anthony Corrado). PACs "are most concerned with advancing their narrow interest[s]" and therefore "provide support to candidates who share their views, regardless of party affiliation." Ibid. In fact, many PACs naturally express their narrow interests by contributing to both parties during the same electoral cycle,'12 and sometimes even directly to two competing candidates in the same election, L. Sabato, PAC Power, Inside the World of Political Action Committees 88 (1984).13 Parties 12As former Senator Paul Simon explained, "I believe people contribute to party committees on both sides of the aisle for the same reason that Federal Express does, because they want favors. There is an expectation that giving to party committees helps you legislatively." Id., at 270. See also id., at 269-270 (recounting debate over a bill favored by Federal Express during which a colleague exclaimed "we've got to pay attention to who is buttering our bread"). The FEC's public records confirm that Federal Express's PAC (along with many others) contributed to both major parties in recent elections. See, e.g., FEC Disclosure Report, Search Results for Federal Express Political Action Committee (June 20, 2001), http://herndonl.sdrdc.com/ cgi-bin/com-supopp/C0068692; FEC Disclosure Report, Search Results for Association of Trial Lawyers of America Political Action Committee (June 20, 2001), http://herndonl.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/com-supopp/C00024521; FEC Disclosure Report, Search Results for Philip Morris Companies, Inc., Political Action Committee (June 20, 2001), http://herndonl.sdrdc.com/ cgi-bin/com-supopp/C00089136; FEC Disclosure Report, Search Results for American Medical Association Political Action Committee (June 20, 2001), http://herndonl.sdrdc.concgi-bin/com-supopp/C00000422; FEC Disclosure Report, Search Results for Letter Carriers Political Action Fund (June 20, 2001), http://herndonl.sdrd.com/cgi-bin/com-supopp/ C00023580. 13 For example, the PACs associated with AOL Time Warner Inc. and Philip Morris Companies, Inc., both made contributions to the competing 2000 Senate campaigns of George Allen and Charles Robb. See

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Federal Election Committee v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether FECA's limits on a political party's coordinated expenditures — spending made by a party in cooperation, consultation, or concert with a candidate — are constitutional under the First Amendment as a means of preventing circumvention of the base contribution limits. Specifically, whether a party's coordinated expenditures, which function like contributions to the candidate, may be restricted to prevent donors from funneling large contributions through a party to a candidate.

Alleged Acts: On remand from Colorado I (1996), the case returned to the lower courts to address the question the Supreme Court had left open: whether FECA's Party Expenditure Provision could constitutionally limit in-fact coordinated expenditures — i.e., party spending that was actually coordinated with a candidate's campaign. The FEC sought to uphold the limits as a means of preventing circumvention of the base contribution limits: without limits on party coordinated expenditures, a donor could give large contributions to a political party, which the party could then spend in coordination with a candidate, effectively bypassing the limits on direct contributions to that candidate.

Procedural history: The district court granted summary judgment to the Colorado Party, holding the Party Expenditure Provision unconstitutional because the FEC "failed to offer relevant, admissible evidence which suggests that coordinated party expenditures must be limited to prevent corruption or the appearance thereof." The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding that the FEC had not demonstrated that coordinated spending by political parties corrupts, or creates the appearance of corrupting, the electoral process, and that the limits constituted an "unnecessary abridgment" of First Amendment freedoms. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding that the FEC had not demonstrated that coordinated spending by political parties corrupts, or creates the appearance of corrupting, the electoral process, and that the limits constituted an "unnecessary abridgment" of First Amendment freedoms.

Summary: Colorado II (2001) held that a political party's coordinated expenditures — spending made in cooperation with a candidate — may be constitutionally limited to prevent circumvention of the base contribution limits. The Court applied a deferential standard of review and reasoned that coordinated expenditures are functionally equivalent to direct contributions. This decision was later overruled by the Supreme Court in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, 609 U.S. ___ (2026), which held that FECA's political-party coordinated-expenditure limits violate the First Amendment because the combination of base contribution limits, earmarking rules, and disclosure requirements sufficiently serves the anti-circumvention interest without the need for the additional speech-restrictive limits. The Court in NRSC v. FEC adopted the reasoning of Justice Thomas's Colorado II dissent, which had argued that earmarking rules were a more "precise response" to circumvention concerns and that the limits broadly restricted political party speech.

Conclusion: In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit and upheld the constitutionality of FECA's limits on political-party coordinated expenditures. The Court held that a party's coordinated expenditures, unlike truly independent expenditures, may be constitutionally restricted to minimize circumvention of contribution limits. The Court reasoned that coordinated expenditures are "virtually indistinguishable" from direct contributions to a candidate, because when a party coordinates its spending with a candidate, the expenditure is "as useful to the candidate as cash." The Court held that the government's interest in preventing circumvention of the base contribution limits was a sufficient justification for the coordinated-expenditure limits. Without such limits, donors could give large contributions to a party that would then be spent in coordination with a candidate, effectively bypassing the contribution limits. The Court noted that "parties' capacity to concentrate power to elect is the very capacity that apparently opens them to exploitation as channels for circumventing contribution and coordinated spending limits binding on other political players."

Legal Issue(s)

Campaign Finance

Applicable Law(s): Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and First Amendment of the United States Constitution

Region: Americas

Country: United States of America

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Jun 25, 2001

Geolocation

Latitude: 38.890591

Longitude: -77.004745

: Geolocation

Link: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep533/usrep533431/usrep533431.pdf

Primary Documents

Federal Election Committee v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Federal Election Committee v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee

Primary Documents

Notifications