Free speech, not free rein

George F. Will, like many other conservatives, is still celebrating last week's landmark Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance regulations (see today's Commentary page). And that 5-4 decision in Citizens United vs. the Federal Elections Commission case did rightly strike down the overreaching 2002 McCain-Feingold Act. But the ruling's additional, precedent-busting classification of corporations and unions as "persons" under the First Amendment could put them in a position to exert undue power, in the form of decisive political contributions, in the democratic process.

The most blatantly unfair McCain-Feingold rule was its prohibition on "electioneering communications" (broadcasts that name a federal candidate) within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, if paid for with corporate or union funds. The court properly found that ban contrary to the First Amendment.

So clearly, McCain-Feingold's time limits on free speech went too far. Yet the court also went too far by voiding a long series of reasonable restrictions on corporate political influence. Such limits began with the 1907 Tillman Act, sponsored by South Carolina Sen. "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman.

The ruling's defenders dismiss fears that it will produce excessive corporate and union political power. They correctly argue that President Obama overstated the decision's impact during Wednesday night's State of the Union speech -- and that he violated traditional decorum by chastising the Supreme Court justices in attendance.

The ruling's defenders further cite grass-roots Internet donation drives that helped Mr. Obama win the presidency in 2008 and Scott Brown win a Massachusetts Senate seat last week as proof that individuals can hold their own in campaign contributions.

But in this modern media age, it takes big-time money to win big-time elections. Corporations and unions have had an ample political say for a long time despite lacking the same contribution prerogatives as "persons." And grass-roots groups raising money for political candidates and causes are unlikely to win many campaign-funding arms races with the likes of Exxon and the AFL-CIO.

In response to last week's ruling, some federal lawmakers are trying to craft new legislation that can place fair restraints on corporate/union political power without violating the court's view of free speech. Good luck in that necessary task.