Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission

Background

In 1986 the Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee bought radio advertisements attacking Timothy Wirth before the party had selected its Senate nominee. The Federal Election Commission charged that those ads exceeded the limits set by the Federal Election Campaign Act’s party expenditure provision, §441a(d)(3). The Colorado Party sued, the District Court ruled for the party on a narrow reading, the Tenth Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court took the case to decide the First Amendment issues as applied here.

Reasoning

The Court found on the summary-judgment record that the ads were independent — developed and approved by party staff without coordination with any candidate. Relying on Buckley and related precedents that protect independent expenditures, the majority held that the First Amendment bars applying FECA’s party expenditure limits to this kind of noncoordinated party speech. The Court rejected the FEC’s blanket presumption that party spending is always coordinated and said labels cannot turn independent advocacy into a regulated contribution. The Court vacated the court of appeals judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Real world impact

The ruling protects political parties’ ability to run independent, issue or attack ads without being capped by the statutory party allotments in the circumstances shown here. Because the decision is limited to expenditures the record shows were not coordinated, it leaves open whether coordinated party spending or broader facial attacks on the statute are permissible. The case returns the matter to lower courts and signals further litigation about where coordination and contribution rules apply.

Dissents or concurrances

Concurring and dissenting opinions disagreed about scope. Justices Kennedy and Thomas would have reached broader questions and would have invalidated the limits more fully. Justice Stevens (joined by Justice Ginsburg) dissented, arguing party spending should be treated as contributions and that limits serve anticorruption and fairness interests.