LATEST RULING CONTINUES FETTERS ON FREE SPEECH

This past week saw another in a long line of decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court on the subject of campaign-spending limits.

The closely divided court upheld Watergate-era limits on what state political parties can spend for mass mailings, ads and other activities in support of specific candidates.

Although supporters of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance bill cheered the ruling, more shouldn't be read into it than is, in fact, there. As the Associated Press story put it: "The two sides agree that Monday's 5-4 ruling doesn't directly relate to the campaign spending legislation that passed the Senate in April and is headed for a House vote in July."

That said, we don't think much of the ruling. It is another in the regrettable series of rulings drastically limiting free speech in the name of campaign-finance reform.

Here is what Justice Clarence Thomas had to say, writing for the four dissenters:

"I remain baffled that the court has extended the most generous First Amendment safeguards to filing lawsuits, wearing profane jackets and exhibiting drive-in movies with nudity but has offered only tepid protection to the core speech and associated rights that our Founders sought to defend."

Thomas might also have added to his list nude dancing and other forms of adult entertainment, which the court has declared to be protected speech.

Those who understand the critical free-speech issues jeopardized by rulings such as last week's can take heart that it was a 5-4 decision. This suggests the possibility that one day it can be reversed by a court more properly attuned to preserving our First Amendment right to free speech and communicating ideas in our political campaigns.

Let's hope so.