page_title: Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC
section_title: The Supreme Court's decision
hierarchical_section_title: Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC / The Supreme Court's decision
caption_attribution_description: U.S. Supreme Court, 1998 Back row (left to right): w:Ruth Bader Ginsburg, w:David Hackett Souter, w:Clarence Thomas, w:Stephen Breyer; front row (left to right): w:Antonin Scalia, w:John Paul Stevens, w:William Hubbs Rehnquist, w:Sandra Day O'Connor, w:Anthony M. Kennedy.
context_page_description: Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604, was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Colorado Republican Party challenged the Federal Election Commission as to whether the "Party Expenditure Provision" of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 violated the First Amendment right to free speech. This provision put a limit on the amount of money a national party could spend on a congressional candidate's campaign. The FEC argued that the Committee violated this provision when purchasing a radio advertisement that attacked the likely candidate of the Colorado Democratic Party. The court held that since the expenditures by the Committee were made independently from a specific candidate, they did not violate the campaign contribution limitations established by the FECA, and were protected under the First Amendment.
context_section_description: In a 7-2 plurality decision announced by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the United States Supreme Court held that independent expenditures by political parties made without coordination of a candidate are protected by the First Amendment.
  The court also ruled that the advertisement paid for by the Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee was an independent expenditure, as it did not advocate for any candidate in particular. As an independent expenditure, the advertisement was found to be not in violation of the Party Expenditure Provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act. Because of this, the Court did not address the constitutionality of the provision as a whole.
  Both Justices Kennedy and Thomas wrote opinions that were in concurrence with Justice Breyer, and Justice Steven dissented.
caption: The Rehnquist Court (1998)
exif: {}