We find ourselves in the middle of an election year, and, because of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, in a muddle.

While Democrats took the lead in arguing against soft money, it is Democratic groups that are now using what other Democrats call a loophole to raise and spend large, unregulated contributions to defeat President Bush. For instance, Congressman Marty Meehan, term-limits turncoat and author of the Don’t-Criticize-Your-Rulers Act, argues these groups should also be regulated er, silenced by the FEC.

“To do nothing,” he wrote to the FEC, “would be to bless a loophole that will have grave consequences.” Huh? Freedom of speech used to be a part of the Constitution. Now it’s a loophole. But Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi and 121 other Democrats signed a letter to the FEC saying that the “proposed rules severely undermine” the balance between regulation and free political expression, which they point out also has “potentially severe consequences.”

The problem in the minds of these Democratic congressmen and, more importantly, in our legal system is this idea that our First Amendment rights are to be balanced against the compelling state interest in regulating elections. Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow, or even suggest, that our rights can be “balanced” against the desires of career politicians to take away those rights. The First Amendment is explicit that Congress shall not regulate speech. How do we balance that against the politicians’ desire to regulate what’s said about them? In a better world, we don’t.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.