The issues raised in the California Medical Association decision, on the proper conduct of political action committees in election campaigns, were the subjects of many other cases decided by federal courts in the 1980s. One of the most important disputes was F.E.C. v. National Conservative Political Action Committee, argued and decided in the Supreme Court's 1984–1985 term. The National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC), founded in 1975, became a major contributor to Republican Party candidates in their campaigns for Congress and the White House in the early 1980s. Recognized as a very influential political organization of the right side of the ideological sphere in the United States at that time, the committee supported conservative candidates by collecting funds for their campaigns, as well as preparing media advertisements attacking their political opponents.

The Federal Election Commission filed a suit against the conservative political action committee when it was revealed that the organization had spent more than $1,000 on the campaign supporting a candidate for the presidency, which was a violation of one of the provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act. After a long battle in the lower courts, the highest judicial tribunal in the U.S. took the case in order to define the constitutionality of expenditure limits. In a 7–2 decision, announced by William Rehnquist, the Court used the freedom of speech argument to declare that parts of the Federal Election Commission Act violated the First Amendment, as such issues were beyond the power of the government. The decision underlined the important role of political action committees in the electoral process, defending their status as independent organizations which could openly participate in election campaigns.

MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court…