Followers of money

ONLY A DAY after the Supreme Court agreed to reconsider fundamental campaign finance rulings, a grand jury in Texas showed yesterday why that review is sorely needed.

The grand jury indicted Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, on criminal conspiracy charges stemming from his alleged use of illegal corporate money in 2002 to help Republicans win control of the Texas state House of Representatives. That campaign was successful, and it had national consequences. The Texas Legislature redrew the state's congressional district lines -- unprecedented between census years -- with the result that the GOP gained six seats in the Texas delegation to the US House in last year's elections.

Big money should not be able to buy political results. But millions of discouraged American voters believe that major campaigns -- and governmental policy decisions -- are determined by wealthy insiders. All too often they are right.

This is why the Supreme Court's decision to review a Vermont law expressly challenging the court's 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling is so crucial. A central finding of that post-Watergate decision was that, as long as the money was raised legally or came from a candidate's personal wealth, campaign expenditures are a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment and therefore cannot be limited.

But that conclusion went too far. It should be possible to allow extremely wide latitude in what may be said and how it may be expressed without giving absolute protection to how loudly it may be trumpeted. Indeed, big special-interest contributions and independent expenditures frequently drown out the voices of ordinary citizens and others with slim checkbooks, essentially denying them equal access to the nation's treasured democratic process.

Of course, it may be that the court will reaffirm its decision in Buckley, but the justices inclined that way will have to answer a lower-court finding that growing public cynicism about the political process is an important consideration.

Even a reversal of Buckley would not completely cure the problem of those who break the law. Texas prohibits corporate contributions altogether, but a committee set up by DeLay, according to yesterday's indictment, accepted $155,000 from corporations and funneled it into campaign contributions. DeLay relinquished his leadership post temporarily. He would not even have had to do that if a sweetheart rule passed by his colleagues last November had not been rescinded in January.

If the Supreme Court now allows spending limits, that will improve democracy for the great majority of citizens, and also make it harder for lawbreakers to spend their ill-gotten money.