By Paul Jacob

In Nebraska, millionaire Pete Ricketts has just dipped into his pocket to add $725,000 to his U.S. Senate campaign account. He'd like to spend more to unseat the incumbent, Ben Nelson, but if he does put just a few more bucks into the kitty, his opponent gets to start calling his best donors. For another stab at funding him. Over the usual spending limits.

What's going on here?

Well, free-speech fans tend to focus on the explicit curbs on speech recentcampaign finance reform has imposed. But there are many other lovely details. One of those details might seem like an improvement at first glance. According to a new law that took effect in the '03-'04 election cycle, the government permits candidates to collect more money from donors if up against a self-financed candidate who exceeds a certain government-set spending limit.

As with all the campaign finance laws, you as a candidate are not allowed to simply rely on your ideas and appeal to acquire campaign contributions. Instead, if you're up against a millionaire, you have to wait for him to clobber you beyond a certain point. Not to mention all the other arbitrary restrictions you and your supporters have to worry about.

I prefer freedom. Let candidates raise what they can without all the regulatory ceilings and loopholes. If their ideas and candidacies are worth supporting, they will be supported.

Common Sense is published by Americans for Limited Government. Their website can be visited at www.limitedgov.org.