An editorial in The Washington Post clarifies the significance of District Judge Henry Kennedy's decision to allow Hawaii Right to Life to run issue ads in the special congressional elections currently being held in Hawaii. According to the editorial, the ruling is less a defeat for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 than a reminder of the kinds of financing loopholes that the law cannot really address head on, given the Supreme Court's apparent views on the relationship between money, nonprofit organizations, speech, and elections. Today's editorial is responding to the hype created by an article in the Washington Post last week, with the misleading headline, "Campaign Finance Law Fails Its First Test." The Post's goof is pretty big, but understandable given the complexity of campaign finance reform.

And in other campaign finance related news, Senator Mitch McConnell is having his day in court today. He is leading a challenge against BCRA. Oral arguments were heard today before a three-judge panel.

As far as I understand the issue, BCRA is a good attempt to get at a real problem with the currently available tools. It's a good attempt because, hopefully, it will pass muster with the Supreme Court (although it's ultimately problematic to have a Court that is so willing to intervene in the self-policing of Congress in this area). It addresses a real problem because the massive funds necessary for political campaigns do, in fact, distort the legislative process. It uses the "currently available tools," including reporting requirements and various restrictions on funding sources, but a more effective attempt to change the way campaigns are financed would ultimately need different tools, such as public funding of elections, free air time, and other kinds of regulations on campaign advertising.

After this broad statement of principle, more details, of course, will follow. We'll have plenty of opportunities to talk about this one, I'm sure.