The regulation of political parties has been a long-standing debate in the United States. In the early 20th century, the Supreme Court was faced with the question of whether a party should be considered a public or private association. This was seen in the “white primary cases” in Texas, where the Court had to decide whether the Democratic Party's primary could exclude African-Americans from participating or be subject to state and congressional regulation. Ultimately, the Court ruled that the party's primary elections were subject to regulation and that African-Americans could not be prohibited from participating. In Connecticut Republican Party v.
Connecticut (198), the Court invalidated a state closed primary law that prevented a party from inviting independent voters to participate in its primary elections. The San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee v. Eu (198) used the First Amendment to overturn a state law that prohibited political parties from giving their political support. In California Democratic Party v.
Jones (2000), the Court annulled, based on the First Amendment, a state law that converted California's primary into an “open primary”, allowing anyone of any affiliation to vote in a party's primary. These decisions affirmed that political parties have rights of free association and that they have the right to decide who to join, so the government cannot prescribe who a political organization decides to admit to a primary or who it supports. However, in Beaver v. Oklahoma Republican Party (200), the Court confirmed an Oklahoma semi-closed primary system that restricted who could vote in the primary. The Supreme Court also addressed campaign finance in its decisions. In Buckley v.
Valeo (197), it confirmed the 1974 amendments to the Federal Electoral Campaigns Act, which created a system for public funding of presidential elections, imposed limits on contributions to political parties and declared it illegal for parties to coordinate or plan their expenses or expenses with candidates for public office. In Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (200), it confirmed the prohibition of coordinated contributions. The rulings of the Supreme Court have had a significant impact on how public debates between members of different parties in central Colorado have evolved over time. With contribution limits and restrictions on who can vote in primaries, small factions can gain immense influence over a majority party.
This has led to more intense debates between members of different parties as they compete for power and influence.
