ANOTHER JUDGE STRIKES SOFT-MONEY LIMIT

It has happened yet again: A federal judge in Colorado has struck down a federal law limiting expenditures of so-called soft money in political campaigns. Soft money is distinguished from hard money in that the latter is money donated directly to candidates for expenditure on their campaigns. Soft money, by way of contrast, refers to funds donated to state or national parties for what is called party-building or get-out-the-vote efforts. On these funds, by and large, there are no limits on donations.

The latest federal judge's ruling follows a similar ruling by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, which voided Missouri's campaign-finance restrictions late last year. That case has been accepted on appeal for hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court, setting up a historic ruling later this year, perhaps the most important in a generation.

In their earnest efforts to limit the speech we can all engage in during election campaigns, the reformers can't seem to get around a simple fact: The expenditure of money in election campaigns is the exercise of free speech, protected, thank goodness, under the First Amendment.

How could it be otherwise? In a free society, we enjoy a right to travel where and when we choose. But what if government came along and said, "You enjoy a right to travel, but you may not spend more than $1,000 per year in doing so." With such a restriction, has government gutted your right to travel? Of course it has. So it is with spending money to communicate your message in a political campaign.

The reformers should drop their efforts to restrict speech and open up all political money to full and immediate disclosure on the Internet. Let the people see who is donating to whom, and let the people decide. But let them hear more speech, not less.