BREYER, J., dissenting At the same time, those features of the program that led Wileman's dissenters to find its program disproportionately restrictive are absent here. Wileman's statutory scheme covered various different agricultural commodities and imposed a patchwork of geographically based limitations while "prohibit[ing] orders of national scope"-all for no apparent reason. 521 U. S., at 499 (SOUTER, J., dissenting). The law at issue here, however, applies only to mushrooms, and says explicitly that "[a]ny" mushroom order "shall be national in scope." 7 U. S. C. §6103(a). Cf. Wileman, supra, at 493 (SOUTER, J., dissenting) (“[I]f the Government were to attack these problems across an interstate market for a given agricultural commodity or group of them, the substantiality of the national interest would not be open to apparent question . . ."). Nor has the Government relied upon "[m]ere speculation" about the effect of the advertising. Wileman, supra, at 501 (SOUTER, J., dissenting). Rather, it has provided empirical evidence demonstrating the program's effect. See Food Marketing & Economics Group, Mushroom Council Program Effectiveness Review, 1999, p. 6 (Feb. 2000), lodging for United States (available in Clerk of Court's case file) (finding that "for every million dollars spent by the Mushroom Council . . . the growth rate [of mushroom sales] increases by 2.1%"). In consequence, whatever harm the program may cause First Amendment interests is proportionate. Cf. Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U. S. 514, 535 (2001) (BREYER, J., concurring). The Court's decision converts "a question of economic policy for Congress and the Executive" into a "First Amendment issue," contrary to Wileman. 521 U. S., at 468 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Nor can its holding find support in basic First Amendment principles. For these reasons, I dissent. [Appendix to opinion of BREYER, J., follows this page.] Romance is about the little things you do`to show your love for the special one in your life. It doesn't have to be showy, expensive or complicated. In fact, a special meal can be the simplest and most personal way to romance the one you love. Remember, the old saying doesn't just apply to men, the way to anyone's heart is through their stomach. The following tips, menus and recipes will help your love mushroom year-round. Bon Appetit! Setting the Mood Candlelight is a must, casting a warm glow over the entire room. For something different, place fragrant gardenias and floating votives in a bowl of water. Flowers: Don't only put them on the table-strategically place bouquets of your partner's favorite flower around the house. You'll fill the air with romance and fragrance. Guests aren't the only ones deserving of your best china. Set an elegant table from fine linens to polished silver and your message of care will be evident: Never underestimate the power of the written word. Sending a formal invitation will help set the mood. Thumb through your music collection and select romantic CDs. Play them softly throughout your meal. Don't limit yourself to dinner only. Surprise your loved one with a romantic breakfast in bed, picnic lunch or late-night snack. Simple Pleasures Remember it's not necessarily what you cook or how expensive the ingredients but the care and time you put into making it and the reason why you're doing it. Don't always stick to the traditional, be creative! Serve an entire meal of finger foods and feed each other. Try raw vegetables with a zesty cracked peppercorn dip, stuffed mushroom caps, jumbo prawns and cocktail sauce, a variety of olives, pickles, breads and cheeses and decadent fudgy brownies for dessert. APPENDIX TO OPINION OF BREYER, J. Selecting the nu Consider likes and dis. kes when scanning recipes. Keep in mind what's currently in season and what can be prepared ahead of time, Mushrooms lend gourmet appeal for little cost and are available year-round. Keep it simple. Pick up deli-prepared · roasted chicken and potatoes when there's no time to cook. Add a tossed green salad and serve a bakery-prepared fruit tart for dessert. Your menu doesn't have to be complicated or fancy. Buy a heart-shaped pan to add instant amour to baked dishes or desserts. Make a homemade pizza with mushrooms arranged on top in the shape of a heart. Remember it's the little things you do. Finishing Touches Dress for the occasion. Put on your favorite· dress or sportscoat and tie and ask your partner to do the same. Formal attire in itself lends romance and excitement to the occasion. Rent a romantic movie for after your meal – Casablanca, West Side Story, Ghost, When Harry Met Sally and Sleepless In Seattle are all sure to inspire cuddling. Clearing the table and doing the dishes together by hand can be fun and even romantic. There's a certain comfort to thephrase, “You wash, I'll dry." A Passion For Mushrooms The ancient philosopher Petronius and many others proclaimed mushrooms as a potent aphrodisiac and popular "love" food. • For centuries, legends have attributed mushrooms with special mystical powers that cure illness, prolong life and enhance sexuality. The Egyptian pharaohs, who were considered gods as well as kings, declared mushrooms sacred and reserved them for their own use. Brillat-Savarin wrote in The Physiology of Taste that certain varieties of mushrooms can make women more tender and men more apt to love. "After a perfect meal we are more susceptible to the ecstasy of love than at any other time." DR. HANS BAZLI "There is no love sincerer than the love MENU GINGER- Steamed Jasmine Rice Fortune Cookies GINGER-MUSHROOM STIR-FRY 3 tablespoons each lemon juice and soy sauce 1 tablespoon grated fresh ginger 2 cloves garlic, pressed 2 skinned and boned chicken breast halves, cut into strips about 1/2 inch thick 1/3 cup chicken broth or bouillon 2 teaspoons cornstarch Vegetable oil 8 ounces fresh mushrooms, quartered 1 1/2 cups asparagus or green bean slices, about 1 1/2 inches long 3 green onions, sliced diagonally into 1-inch pieces Toasted sesame seeds Lemon slices Cilantro or parsley sprigs In bowl combine lemon juice, soy sauce, ginger and garlic. Add chicken, tossing to coat; set aside. Measure broth; dissolve cornstarch in broth. In skillet or wok heat 1 to 2 tablespoons oil to sizzling. Drain chicken, reserving liquid. Add mushrooms and chicken to skillet. Toss over high heat until chicken loses pink color. Add asparagus and onions; continue to toss over high heat until chicken juices run clear and vegetables are crisp-tender. Stir in broth mixture to thicken. Sprinkle with sesame seeds. Serve hot, over rice, if desired. Garnish with lemon slices and cilantro. Makes 4 servings Mushrooms STORAGE Store pre-packaged mushrooms in their original containers in the refrigerator and bulk mushrooms in a paper lunch bag. Unlike plastic, a paper bag allows them to "breathe" so they'll remain fresher longer. Stored properly, mushrooms keep for several days. PREPARATION To clean mushrooms, wipe with a damp cloth or rinse quickly in cool water. Be sure not to soak them since their porous nature absorbs liquid quickly.. Mushrooms are convenient to use because they require a minimum of preparation. Fresh mushrooms never need peeling thanks to their soft, thin skins. ARITHMETIC 1 pound whole raw mushrooms = about 6 cups sliced, or 5 cups chopped. 1 pound sliced or chopped cooked mushrooms = about 2 cups. SAUTÉED MUSHROOMS. Quickly sauté small whole, or sliced mushrooms in a little butter, margarine or olive oil. Season with your choice of chopped fresh or dried herbs, sliced green onions, lemon juice, hot pepper sauce, soy sauce or balsamic vinegar. VERSATILE MUSHROOM KABOBS Thread button mushrooms onto bamboo skewers with a selection of raw vegetable chunks. Serve as an appetizer or salad with a dip or two, or brush the kabobs with olive oil, season with salt and pepper and grill on a barbecue. MUSHROOMS WITH PASTA AND PIZZA Add sautéed mushrooms to prepared or homemade pasta sauces for superb flavor and “meaty" texture. With a generous amount of sautéed lowfat mushrooms on pizza, a little cheese can go a long way. Syllabus FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION v. COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT No. 00-191. Argued February 28, 2001-Decided June 25, 2001 In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 12-59, this Court held that the limitations on political campaign contributions in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 were generally constitutional, but that the Act's limitations on election expenditures infringed political expression in violation of the First Amendment. Later cases have respected this line between contributing and spending. The distinction's simplicity is qualified, however, by the Act's provision for a functional, not formal, definition of "contribution," which includes "expenditures made by any person in cooperation, consultation, or concert, with . . . a candidate," 2 U. S. C. § 441a(a)(7)(B)(i). Thus, expenditures coordinated with a candidate are contributions under the Act. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) originally took the position that any expenditure by a political party in connection with a federal election was presumed to be coordinated with the party's candidate. See, e. g., Federal Election Comm'n v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., 454 U. S. 27, 28– 29, n. 1. The FEC thus assumed that all expenditure limits imposed on political parties were, in essence, contribution limits and therefore constitutional. Such limits include § 441a(d)(3), which imposes spending limits on national and state political parties with respect to United States Senate elections. In Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm. v. Federal Election Comm'n, 518 U. S. 604 (Colorado I), the spending limits in §441a(d)(3) (referred to as the Party Expenditure Provision), were held unconstitutional as applied to the independent expenditures of the Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Party) in connection with a senatorial campaign. The principal opinion ruled the payments "independent," rather than coordinated, expenditures under this Court's cases because the Party spent the money before selecting its own senatorial candidate and without any arrangement with potential nominees. Id., at 613-614. The principal opinion remanded the Party's broader claim that all limits on a party's congressional campaign expenditures are facially unconstitutional and thus un REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMM. Syllabus enforceable even as to spending coordinated with a candidate. Id., at 623-626. On remand, the District Court held for the Party on that claim, and a divided Tenth Circuit panel affirmed. Held: Because a party's coordinated expenditures, unlike expenditures truly independent, may be restricted to minimize circumvention of the Act's contribution limits, the Party's facial challenge is rejected. Pp. 440-465. (a) Political expenditure limits deserve closer scrutiny than contribution restrictions, e. g., Buckley, 424 U. S., at 14-23, because expenditure restraints generally curb more expressive and associational activity than contribution limits, e. g., id., at 19-23, and because unlimited contributions are more clearly linked to political corruption than other kinds of unlimited political spending, at least where the spending is not coordinated with a candidate or his campaign, e. g., id., at 47. Although the First Amendment line is easy to draw when it falls between independent expenditures by individuals or political action committees (PACS) without any candidate's approval and contributions in the form of cash gifts to candidates, see, e. g., id., at 19-23, facts speak less clearly once the independence of the spending cannot be taken for granted. Congress's functional treatment of coordinated expenditures by individuals and nonparty groups like contributions prevents attempts to circumvent the Act through coordinated expenditures amounting to disguised contributions. Id., at 47. Buckley, in fact, enhanced the significance of this functional treatment by striking down independent expenditure limits on First Amendment grounds while upholding limitations on contributions (by individuals and nonparty groups), as defined to include coordinated expenditures. Id., at 23-59. Colorado I addressed the FEC's effort to stretch the functional treatment one step further. Because Buckley had treated some coordinated expenditures like contributions and upheld their limitation, the FEC's argument went, the Party Expenditure Provision should stand as applied to all party election spending, see, e. g., 518 U. S., at 619-623. Holding otherwise, the principal opinion found that, because "independent" party expenditures are no more likely to serve corruption than independent expenditures by anyone else, there was no justification for subjecting party election spending across the board to the kinds of limits previously invalidated when applied to individuals and nonparty groups. See id., at 616. But that still left the question whether the First Amendment allows coordinated election expenditures by parties to be treated functionally as contributions, the way coordinated expenditures by other entities are treated. The issue in this case is, accordingly, whether a party is in a different position from other political speakers, giving it a claim to de |