<a href="http://electionlawblog.org/archives/011095.html">The Election Law Blog</a> has a helpful summary of today's Supreme Court decision against limits on campaign financing.  The Court ruled that just because a candidate is wealthy does not justify increasing the fundraising limits on his opponent. This follows previous court rulings that frown on limiting the fund raising of candidates.

I do not personally agree that money and speech are equivalent, particularly in Politics. The freedom of speech is not, to me, the freedom to drown out an opponent or prevent them from being heard. Increasingly it seems to me that the only solution to level the playing field in elections, and neutralizing the influence of narrow special interests, is to use public funds to balance the marketing reach of the candidates. I propose that candidates can raise as much money as they like but at reasonable intervals they, and their opponents, can receive public funds to ensure that their point of view is being heard by the voters.

To me the competition is not just between candidates but between the public interest and narrow financial special interests. The cost of public financing of campaigns is far less than the cost of accommodating these narrow special interests. I hope supporters of the moderate Republican Leadership Council will join with Party Icons like Former Senators Warren Rudman and Alan Simpson to support a more representative government.