d sums of their own money while requiring other candidates to raise funds in small amounts.5 Advocates of the proposed amendment argue that our government has been shaken to the core by recent political scandals. Some even argue that our political system is rotten to the core. But the centrality of free speech to political liberty is not in dispute. S.J. Res. 18, were it adopted, would represent the first time an American government claimed the power to limit, and therefore to regulate and control, political discussion. Since the time of ancient Athens, the right of open debate has been considered an essential element of self-government. As elections expanded the reach of democratic government beyond the confines of a single city, so freedom of the press expanded the right of free speech. U.S. courts have held consistently and logically that restrictions on spending for printing, mailing, or advertising are, in fact, substantial restrictions on the ability to communicate ideas. Without free debate, elections cannot be an effective means of self-government. Are limits to be equal for every party; for well-known incumbents as for obscure challengers? Are persons or groups other than candidates permitted to spend money for political advertising? If so, are candidates' limits to be somehow equalized? Are issue ads to be limited or forbidden? And who determines the difference between free speech and campaigning? How is the government to be prevented from abusing its power to set limits that help the party or politicians in power? ...
