CAMPAIGN MONEY MESS

A federal judge in Springfield this week upheld Proposition A, an initiative that placed strict limits on campaign contributions. Passed last November by a 74 percent margin of voters, Prop A limits political donations to $100, $200 and $300, depending on the office sought. It applies to state and local races but not to federal campaigns.

Even with so large an approval margin, it is important to realize that the act was subject to a constitutional challenge of the kind the plaintiffs brought. Their arguments were -- and are -- compelling: that the law unfairly benefits incumbents and wealthy candidates and will force all to spend vastly more time chasing contributions.

U.S. District Judge Russell Clark -- the same judge who gave us the billion-dollar Kansas City school desegregation decision -- blithely ignored an appellate decision that many observers had thought would apply. Just last fall, the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in St. Louis struck down a Minnesota law that had imposed $100 contribution limits. Clark's poorly written opinion attempts to distinguish this decision, but he is unpersuasive.

Judge Clark's decision should be appealed to the 8th Circuit. Limits on contributions this severe are limitations on speech and thus affect First Amendment rights, as the U.S. Supreme Court has held. The answer to money in politics is full disclosure. Missouri has long had a strong disclosure law. The law of unintended consequences, applied under Prop A, will further entrench incumbents and foul up -- not clean up -- our campaigns.