A most welcome ruling.

Byline: The Register-Guard

In a ruling that should be cheered by every American concerned with the role money plays in the nation's political system, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the most important elements of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act of 2002.

The high court ruled 5-4 that the McCain-Feingold act's ban on so-called "soft money" contributions to federal candidates is not an unconstitutional limit to free speech - as those who brought the suit challenging the act claimed - but rather was a legitimate congressional recognition that big money, and especially underreported money, has tilted the American political system toward those with the most cash. Of particular note was the court's distinction between Congress' ban on soft-money donations and lawmakers' ban on federal candidates soliciting such donations. Both bans are within constitutional limits, the court ruled.

The high court also upheld McCain-Feingold's prohibition against political advertisements by special interests in the weeks just before an election. Of all the act's provisions, that one perhaps ran the greatest risk of falling victim to a free speech argument. But the majority justices on the court - Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer - said no.

"The idea that large contributions to a national party can corrupt or create the appearance of corruption of federal candidates and office-holders is neither novel nor implausible," the majority said in its 298-page opinion. "We're under no illusion. Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems will arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day."

In the dissent written by Rehnquist, the justices in opposition said: "No doubt Congress was convinced by the many abuses of the current system that something in this area must be done. Its response, however, was too blunt."

Scalia called the majority ruling "a sad day for freedom of speech."

It wasn't. It was a day on which the court joined Congress in recognizing the need for some regulation on the flow of money from big monied special interest to candidates for federal office. As the majority noted in its opinion, McCain-Feingold's attempt to control political contributions "is not limited to the elimination of quid pro quo, cash-for-votes exchanges. It also extends to undue influence on an officeholder's judgment, and the appearance of such influence."

The ruling no doubt already has political operatives looking for ways to circumvent the law. But for now, the American political system has had a much-needed bath. It's more than heartening that the scrubbing was administered not only by those within the political system itself - members of Congress - but was endorsed by the highest court in the land.