Previous 29 / 54 Next

Cite as: 533 U. S. 431 (2001) Opinion of the Court B Since there is no recent experience with unlimited coordinated spending, the question is whether experience under the present law confirms a serious threat of abuse from the unlimited coordinated party spending as the Government contends. Cf. Burson v. Freeman, 504 U. S. 191, 208 (1992) (opinion of Blackmun, J.) (noting difficulty of mustering evidence to support long-enforced statutes). It clearly does. Despite years of enforcement of the challenged limits, substantial evidence demonstrates how candidates, donors, and parties test the limits of the current law, and it shows beyond serious doubt how contribution limits would be eroded if inducement to circumvent them were enhanced by declaring parties' coordinated spending wide open. 19 and nonparty groups. The dissent does not take issue with this justification as a theoretical matter. See also 213 F. 3d 1221, 1232 (CA10 2000) (Court of Appeals acknowledging circumvention as a possible "avenue of abuse"). 19In Colorado I, the principal opinion suggested that the Party Expenditure Provision was not enacted out of "a special concern about the potentially 'corrupting' effect of party expenditures, but rather for the constitutionally insufficient purpose of reducing what [Congress] saw as wasteful and excessive campaign spending." 518 U. S., at 618. That observation was relevant to our examination of the Party Expenditure Provision as applied to independent expenditures, see id., at 617-618, limits on which were invalidated with regard to other political actors in Buckley in part because they were justified by concern with wasteful campaign spending, Buckley, 424 U. S., at 57. Our point in Colorado I was that there was no evidence that Congress had a special motivation regarding parties that would justify limiting their independent expenditures after similar limits imposed on other spenders had been invalidated. As for the Party Expenditure Provision's application to coordinated expenditures, on the other hand, the evidence discussed in the text suggests that the anticircumvention rationale that justifies other coordinated expenditure limits, see Buckley, supra, at 46-47, is at work here as well. The dissent ignores this distinction, post, at 475, but neither the dissent nor the Party seriously argues that Congress was not concerned with circumvention of contribution limits using parties as conduits. All acknowledge that Congress enacted other measures prompted by just that concern. See post, at 481;

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