## Facts

- The Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee purchased radio advertisements criticizing the likely Democratic U.S. Senate candidate in Colorado before the Republican Party had selected its own 1986 Senate candidate.
- The Federal Election Commission alleged the spending violated FECA’s “Party Expenditure Provision,” which limited party “expenditure[s] in connection with the general election campaign” of a congressional candidate.
- The Colorado Party asserted the ads were independent expenditures made without coordination with any candidate and argued that applying the statutory limit violated the First Amendment.
- The district court construed the statutory phrase “in connection with” narrowly, held the provision did not cover the ads, and dismissed the constitutional counterclaim as moot.
- The Tenth Circuit reversed, held the ads were covered, and upheld the provision’s constitutionality as applied.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari and issued a fragmented decision vacating and remanding.

## Issues

1. Whether FECA’s limits on party “expenditures in connection with” a candidate’s general election campaign may constitutionally be applied to political party spending that is independent and not coordinated with any candidate.
2. Whether FECA’s party-expenditure limits are facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated the Tenth Circuit’s judgment and remanded.
- A majority agreed that applying the Party Expenditure Provision to the Colorado Party’s radio ads was unconstitutional because the spending was independent and uncoordinated with any candidate.
- The Court did not produce a majority holding resolving whether the Party Expenditure Provision is facially unconstitutional.

## Legal Principles

- Political party expenditures that are truly independent—made without coordination or any understanding with a candidate—receive strong First Amendment protection.
- Under FECA doctrine distinguishing contributions from independent expenditures, limits may be imposed on contributions (including coordinated spending) to address the appearance or reality of corruption, but limits on independent expenditures are generally unconstitutional.
- The government may not treat all party spending connected to elections as inherently coordinated without adequate evidentiary support; independent and coordinated party spending are constitutionally distinct.
- Absent record evidence or legislative findings showing a special corruption risk from independent party expenditures, anti-corruption interests do not justify applying contribution-like limits to such expenditures.

## Conclusion

The Court held, as applied, that FECA’s party-expenditure cap could not constitutionally restrict a political party’s independent, non-coordinated advertising expenditures, while leaving unresolved the broader facial validity of the statutory limits.


Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign Comm. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 518 U.S. 604 (1996)