The last vital Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of certain regulations of the Federal Election Campaign Act made in the 20th century came in 1996 in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. F.E.C. The issue referred to the actions undertaken by the Republican Committee in Colorado during the 1986 elections to the state Senate, when it prepared a series of radio advertisements criticizing prospective candidates of the rival Democratic Party. According to FECA provisions, such contributions were prohibited, because the expenditures of political parties during federal election campaigns to Congress were limited. As a result, the Federal Election Commission filed a suit against the operations of the Republican Committee, which, in a countersuit, claimed that federal campaign finance legislation was inconsistent with the constitutional right to free speech. Although the District Court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds of its mootness, the Court of Appeals adjudicated in the dispute, finding no violation of the constitution in FECA's restrictions. Finally, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, which posed a general question on the constitutionality of the FECA provisions regarding campaign contributions by political parties in elections to Congress.

Seven Justices signed the plurality opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer, in which they declared the constitutionality of the expenditures of political parties which were not made in the name of any candidates and not coordinated with them – thus making them independent expenditures. The Court established that any prohibition of such an expenditure contradicts the principles of free speech and free expression. As a result, the Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee won the case, but the Court's holding did not directly overrule any larger piece of campaign finance legislation, as only Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote a dissent, opted for an argument on the unconstitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act's restrictions on political party contributions. Although the Republican Committee also challenged the limits on coordinated expenditures in support of candidates to the House of Representatives and Senate, the Court decided not to consider that issue in the case.