Previous 31 / 54 Next

Cite as: 533 U. S. 431 (2001) Opinion of the Court Although the understanding between donor and party may involve no definite commitment and may be tacit on the donor's part, the frequency of the practice and the volume of money involved has required some manner of informal book- keeping by the recipient. In the Democratic Party, at least, the method is known as "tallying," a system that helps to connect donors to candidates through the accommodation of a party. See App. 246-247 (Hickmott declaration) ("[The tally system] is an informal agreement between the DSCC and the candidates' campaigns that if you help the DSCC raise contributions, we will turn around and help your campaign"); id., at 268 (declaration of former Senator Paul Simon) ("Donors would be told the money they contributed could be credited to any Senate candidate. The callers would make clear that this was not a direct contribution, but it was fairly close to direct"); id., at 165-166 (Billings declaration) ("There appeared to be an understanding between the DSCC and the Senators that the amount of money they received from the DSCC was related to how much they raised for the 22 Committee"). Such is the state of affairs under the current law, which requires most party spending on a candidate's behalf to be Court mistakenly concluded that Colorado I had rejected the anticircumvention rationale as a matter of law, 41 F. Supp. 2d, at 1211, n. 9. We explain below, infra, at 463-465, why Colorado I's rejection of the anticircumvention rationale in the context of limits applied to independent party expenditures does not control the outcome of this case. 22The dissent dismisses this evidence as describing "legal" practices. Post, at 479. The dissent may be correct that the FEC considers tallying legal, see Reply Brief for Petitioner 9, n. 3, but one thing is clear: tallying is a sign that contribution limits are being diluted and could be diluted further if the floodgates were open. Why, after all, does a party bother to tally? The obvious answer is that it wants to know who gets the benefit of the contributions to the party, as the record quotations attest. See also n. 23, infra. And the fact that the parties may not fund sure losers, stressed by the dissent (post, at 478-479), is irrelevant. The issue is what would become of contribution limits if parties could use unlimited coordinated spending to funnel contributions to those serious contenders who are favored by the donors.

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