Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
115 federal appellate · 77 district · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 410 later decisions (32 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Federal Election Commission v. Akins (1998), McConnell United States Senator et al. v. Federal Election Commission et al. (2003)
115 federal appellate · 77 district · 58 state decisions — followed in 15 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedFederal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (from Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Buckley v. Valeo · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 410 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Given these established principles [established in Buckley and its progeny], we do not see how a provision that limits a political party’s independent expenditures can escape their controlling effect. A political party’s independent expression not only reflects its members’ views about the philosophical and governmental matters that bind them together, it also seeks to convince others to join those members in a practical democratic task, the task of creating a government that voters can instruct and hold responsible for subsequent success or failure. The independent expression of a political party’s views is “core” First Amendment activity no less than is the independent expression of individuals, candidates, or other political committees. We are not aware of any special dangers of corruption associated with political parties that tip the constitutional balance in a different direction. When this Court considered, and held unconstitutional, limits that FECA had set on certain independent expenditures by political action committees, it reiterated Buckley’s observation that “the absence of prearrangement and coordination” does not eliminate, but it does help to “alleviate,” any “danger” that a candidate will understand the expenditure as an effort to obtain a quid pro quo. The same is true of independent party expenditures.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“); Colorado Republican Fed. Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604 , 617-18, 116 S.Ct. 2309, 135 L.Ed.2d 795 (1996) (stating that the fact that independent expenditures are not coordinated with a candidate prevents the "assum[ption], absent convincing evidence to the contrary, that a limitation on political parties' independent expenditures is necessary to combat a substantial danger of corruption of the electoral system”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kruse v. City Of Cincinnati · Kruse“A party shares a unique' relationship with the candidate it sponsors because their political fates are inextricably linked. That interdependency creates a special danger that the party — or the persons who control the party — will abuse the influence it has over the candidate by virtue of its power to spend.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.