A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado addresses a recurring question in campaign-finance law: when do contribution limits prevent corruption, and when do they go too far?
In Lopez v. Griswold, Republican politicians challenged Colorado’s individual contribution caps and its voluntary spending-limit system under the First Amendment. Both provisions are rooted in Article XXVIII of the Colorado Constitution, adopted in 2002. The plaintiffs argued that the limits unconstitutionally restrict political expression and association, do not meaningfully reduce actual or perceived corruption, and make it harder for candidates to raise the funds needed to campaign effectively.
Colorado’s individual contribution limits are among the lowest in the nation—$725 per election cycle for statewide candidates and $225 for legislative candidates. The district court acknowledged that these limits bear “danger signs” under the Randall v. Sorrell framework, meaning they are low enough to warrant heightened scrutiny. Nevertheless, after a bench trial, the court upheld Colorado’s limits, finding they are closely drawn to serve the state’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance even though the state did not produce evidence of corruption.
The district court also upheld Colorado’s voluntary spending-limit scheme, under which candidates who agree to cap their expenditures receive a preferred designation on the ballot. Applying a public financing framework drawn from Corren v. Condos rather than the strict scrutiny demanded under Davis v. FEC, the court held that the scheme is not coercive and does not burden First Amendment rights.
We will continue to follow the case as it progresses on appeal.
Read Order Here: Lopez v. Griswold