When legislators want to solve a problem in the worst way, they usually do -- solve it in the worst way. Certainly that is the case when speech rights are trumped by campaign-finance reform laws.

The problem legislators see is too much money flowing into political campaigns. Being lawmakers, their first instinct is making laws. They try to limit the flow of money; however, they fail to ask why it is flowing in the first place, which is the primary problem that needs a solution. Fact is, government has too many favors to sell.

When legislators attack the wrong problem, bizarre things happen. Case in point is Minnesota's "special sources limit," which has less to do with economics of campaign financing and more to do with curtailing fundamental speech rights.

Minnesota, like many states and the federal government, limits the amount of money any one person can donate to a candidate during a campaign. In Minnesota, these limits vary depending on the office. Notably, the more influence an office has, the more one can contribute.

In the two years before an election, a citizen can contribute a maximum of $4,000 to a candidate running for governor, $2,500 for attorney general, $2,000 for secretary of state or auditor, and $1,000 for State Senate or State House. Unlike other states, however, Minnesota also has a separate, unique statute that arbitrarily can cut these limits in half.

The "special sources" limit for a Minnesota House candidate is $12,500 in contributions of $500 to $1,000.


Once the limit is reached, all future donors may only contribute up to $500. So, if 12 individuals contribute the maximum $1,000 to a campaign, the 13th donor (and each successive donor) is limited to a maximum $500 contribution.

Minnesota's special-sources limit rations First Amendment speech rights on a first-come, first-served basis. It falls far short of the recent Supreme Court holding (McCutcheon v. FEC) that limits are constitutionally acceptable only if they reduce "corruption or the appearance of corruption"--that is, the trading of dollars for political favors.

Minnesota's special sources limit clearly has no such intent.

If a $1,000 contribution by the first 12 individuals contributing to a campaign does not give the appearance of corruption, then why should the 13th or the 30th or the 300th contribution?

Doug Seaton and Van Carlson are two Minnesotans who have had campaign contributions rejected because the candidates they supported had reached the special-sources limit. Seaton and Carlson, along with State Rep. Linda Runbeck and candidate for the state house Scott Dutcher, each of whom had to return campaign contributions, have teamed with the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit, public-interest law firm, to challenge Minnesota's special-sources limit in federal court. Their lawsuit will be the first opportunity for a federal court to apply the Supreme Court's holding in McCutcheon to a state campaign-finance law.

Irrespective of the outcome of this lawsuit, however, the significant issue of money flowing into politics remains. IJ's legal challenge is not so much about the economics of campaign finance reform. Rather, it's about defending the idea that government restricting the speech "of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment" -- which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo.

But what of campaign finance reform? Something must be done about the corrupting influence of money in politics, right?

Ultimately, the only way to reduce the flow of money into political campaigns is by limiting the scope of government to the point where government doesn't have as many favors to sell. That's why it is so important Minnesotans don't wait for an obvious attack on speech rights to challenge government actions, but respond to any expansion of government intrusion.

Defending the right of Minnesotans like Seaton and Carlson to contribute to the political candidates of their choices is necessary but not sufficient to rein in the scope of government. As Thomas Jefferson so aptly noted "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

Craig Westover of Afton is a Communications Fellow with the Institute for Justice. For more information, visit ij.org.