ABSTRACT
The US Supreme Court in Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado II) determined that the provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) pertaining to "party-coordinated spending" did not deprive political parties of their First Amendment right to support candidates. Whereas the Court in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission (Colorado I) found the FECA provision limiting a party's "independent" expenditures to be unconstitutional, this follow-up case involved only those party expenditures made in "coordination" with a candidate. Writing with the customary vigor he has brought to campaign finance cases, Justice Clarence Thomas, expressing the frustrations of the dissenters, chastised the majority on several grounds. What made Colorado II such an interesting case was that the sentiments expressed by the majority and dissenters depicted competing theoretical expectations of the political process and captured the complexity of the larger campaign finance debate.
