Actually, the restrictions on the timing of “electioneering” political ads seem worse to me than the fundraising restrictions. More of an obvious first amendment violation. I believe there have been some semi-successful court attacks on that already.

As has been frequently commented by American courts, the unfettered exchange of political ideas is at the very heart of our nation’s ability to function as a democratic republic. Campaign finance restrictions limit citizens’ abilities to express their support for a candidate or idea either through purchasing advertisements or offering financial help to those they hope to see elected. Political expression cannot be considered “free” if the government is allowed to limit the form, content, or quantity of the ideas expressed.

Additionally, campaign finance restrictions are enacted from a paternalistic assumption that voters will be incapable of distinguishing quantity from quality. An emblematic concern is that if one side of an election is permitted to raise and spend much more than the other side, voters will simply vote for the loudest, most visible candidate. This insults the intelligence of the electorate. If we truly believe that people are so easily swayed in their voting behaviors, then perhaps we should re-think the wisdom of our reliance on elections altogether. In any event, the solution simply cannot be that those in power get to decide what types of political messages are permissible, when they may be broadcast, and by whom the bills will be paid.

Another concern, and the one on which campaign finance restrictions have been judicially upheld, is that the unlimited ability to contribute to political campaigns allows wealthy donors to “buy” government officials, ensuring influence and favors. To be sure, this is a totally legitimate concern, as this sort of influence-purchasing definitely happens. But the crux of the matter is that everyday citizens have the ability to break this practice, if they determine to do so, because they alone choose who they will vote for. As a voter I would much rather vote for a candidate who chooses to reject massive contributions than one who might feel obligated to grant special treatment to those who bankrolled their campaign. But ultimately this is a test of character for all involved, the potential donors, the candidates, and the voters alike. If you don’t want campaign donations to be a major factor in elections, you should nominate, support, and elect people committed to pursue office without extraordinary financial support from those wanting to purchase political influence. But don’t sacrifice constitutional liberties simply because there isn’t sufficient demand for this type of candidate.