Campaign finance reform is a lawful way to prevent “vote buying,”right? Think again. Campaign finance reform is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was right in filing suit on March 27 challenging the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Many misguided Americans believe that it is acceptable to disregard the First Amendment when it comes to campaign contributions. The newly enacted law censors speech by limiting the financial avenues citizens can use to get their voices heard by government. Instead of creating a more democratic, open system of electioneering, the law dramatically increases the problem of incumbency advantage and favors the rich while effectively disarming challengers.

Spending money is often one of the most effective ways for candidates to disseminate their views. However, many of the high-cost campaign tools that a challenger would have to buy are readily available to incumbents. Whereas incumbents enjoy free mail to constituents about official business, name recognition and assured access to the media, challengers do not. The law therefore prevents candidates who have not previously held office from effectively representing themselves because national political parties will have less soft money to support them.

Campaign finance reform also disregards personal fortunes candidates can use during elections. The law attempts to limit the playing field by allowing candidates to voluntarily accept equal amounts from the government should they reject soft money. This rule, however, makes it a crime for a wealthy donor to contribute to campaigns while it does not limit use of a candidate’s personal fortune. Thus, the law favors the wealthy as well as entrenched incumbents.

People who say that campaign finance reform is still necessary do not have enough faith in the American public. Yes, those with more money will have more advertisements, for example, but if what is being proposed in these ads is outrageous, spending on them is not going to influence the way people vote. Candidates who spend more money on campaigns are successful because voters understand thoroughly what they represent compared to their opponents. All citizens can judge what is best for them in the politicians they elect to office. Publicity is merely one way to get acquainted with the arguments being made.

Contributions to political campaigns are clearly a mode of speech—money sponsors candidates who express and represent the views and ideas of their contributors. Just because some individuals disagree with what contributions are used to say, there is no legitimate reason to restrict the protection of speech guaranteed under the First Amendment. A provision of the new reform places restrictions on a group’s ability to broadcast commercials that mention candidates within 60 days of election. This rule diminishes the ability of political groups to express their views through advertisements. For example, in 1972 the U.S government sued the New York Times for publishing an advertisement condemning bombings of Cambodia by the Nixon administration. Under current regulations, this ad would be deemed a criminal act, especially if published close to election. The law would allow for effective control of promotions made by non-profit and advocacy organizations.

The Supreme Court has noted, “Debate on the qualifications of candidates is integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution.” An election campaign is a means of disseminating ideas and today that takes money.

As a Cato Institute analyst points out, Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that the only legitimate governments are those based on the consent of the governed, a consent that Americans have given for 200 years. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, instead of promoting fairness, undermines this system of debate and free election.