Can't divorce money, politics

In politics, money cannot be separated from speech. A lesser-known candidate needs money to get his or her message across. The flaw with campaign spending limits is that they benefit well-known incumbents.

And the flaw in a federal law limiting so-called soft-money contributions from corporations or interest groups is that it violates free speech rights that belong to all Americans.

The U.S. Supreme Court demonstrated this week that it understands this. By a 5-4 decision, it struck down a narrow portion of the McCain-Feingold law that banned corporations and unions from airing "issue ads" that mention a candidate for federal office within 60 days of a federal election and 30 days of a primary.

As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, "Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election."

The ruling did not go as far as to strike down the entire law, which also keeps political parties from raising unlimited amounts of money from donors, including corporations and unions, which then are passed on to individual campaigns. That's too bad. Money may indeed be a corrupting influence in politics, but, as an earlier Supreme Court ruling stated, "Money, like water, will always find an outlet." A ban in one area simply leads to more creative ways to connect money and politicians in other areas.

At its heart, the First Amendment's free-speech guarantees were written to protect the right of the people to criticize their government. "Issue ads" generally do exactly that, even as they often urge voters to support a change in government. That right ought to trump all other concerns about big business and special interests bribing politicians through contributions.

Or, as Roberts put it, "Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

The only safeguard for the public is to require immediate and full disclosure of all contributions and their sources.

The American political system does indeed have a problem. It is that the voting public is apathetic, disengaged and cynical. Part of this cynicism comes from the influence of well-heeled donors. But much of it comes from a lack of meaningful political debate. This problem must be addressed but not at the expense of constitutional rights.