Wise ruling on campaign $$

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday once again upheld the supremacy of free speech in striking down part of an Arizona public campaign financing law that favored candidates who opted to use public funding.

The law had an admirable goal: taking the corruptive influence of money out of state elections. Arizona voters, in a referendum, approved it after a hidden camera caught state legislators stuffing cash into their gym bags.

No matter the motivation, however, political speech is so crucial to our democratic process, so deeply rooted in our First Amendment protections, that any attempt to restrict it is unwise.

The 5-4 ruling mirrors a pivotal decision in 2010 that struck down limits on union or corporate financing. It should be clear by now that the government doesn't have a role in trying to level the electoral playing field.

Arizona was trying to protect candidates who choose public funding by allowing their campaigns to tap into more taxpayer dollars if their opponent outspent them with privately raised dollars. The court found that such a "matching" rule unfairly punishes privately funded candidates, who would be disinclined to get out their message.

As Chief Justice John Roberts noted, public campaign financing is not at issue, just governments stepping into the money-raising arms race. Instead of trying to control the money, why not follow it: full disclosure of all contributions in real time. It still won't be a level field, but we'd all be able to see the players. hN