Last week’s ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court striking down the bipartisan campaign finance reform provisions enacted last year is a reversal of Missouri’s intent to increase transparency and add sunlight to the flow of money in Missouri’s political process.

The intent of the Missouri Legislature in passing the common-sense campaign finance reform package was to correct flaws in the system that provided ample loopholes for money to filter in to the process—often unreported to Missourians.

As reported by the Columbia Daily Tribune in May 2006, Democratic Senator Tim Green said during debate of the legislation, “'What’s going on in this building is completely wrong, and it’s sick. But we can’t stop it. So why don’t we just let the people know who’s shuffling the money in? And that’s all I’m trying to do with this amendment.'” [h/t Jason Rosenbaum.]

The loopholes didn’t play political favorites or pick sides. In fact, the loopholes were exploited by both the Right and the Left, allowing unlimited and unregulated donations to Party committees, and other, shadowy political entities.

Once the money was “cleansed” through the organizations, they then made large donations to candidates making it impossible to track who gave and when. Democratic Senator Chuck Graham calls it a "wink-and-nod system." Political organisms operating in the shadows is hardly the “Show-Me” mentality that Missourians deserve when it comes to political contributions.

Missourian’s have a right to know who gives political contributions, how much they give, and when they give. Better tools available through the Internet should be employed to add even more transparency to the process ensuring the public’s right to know.

Unfortunately, thanks to the Court’s Ruling, that’s no longer going to happen. Shadowy organizations fueled by unregulated donations will once again creep in to our political process.

And I note with interest and irony the many newspaper editorials lauding the Supreme Court’s decision and demanding the re-imposition of donation limits. These are the same media voices that have decried the lack of transparency I’ve just described – and a lack of transparency will be the inescapable result of the court’s ruling if it isn’t addressed by the Legislature.

Would these same media voices stand for a law that mandated how much they could spend on gathering and reporting the news? Of course not. But they are quite comfortable with limiting the free speech rights of all other citizens.

Free speech rights are indivisible and apply to ALL citizens – not just those who own a printing press or can set-up a shadowy organization.

What do you think? Leave a comment and weigh in on this important discussion.