HIGH COURT LIMITS STATE CURBS ON FREE SPEECH

It was interesting that the Supreme Court ruled last week that states couldn't apply their own restrictions on the advertising of tobacco products because it would violate the First Amendment rights of tobacco companies.

But free speech hasn't proven to be a barrier to the Supreme Court in its ongoing rulings regarding limits on the amount of money supporters can contribute to political campaigns.

This is a serious argument, both for tobacco companies and for potential political contributors. And it is serious enough that anyone who doesn't smoke nor donate to politicians should be interested and concerned.

The court's most recent ruling on tobacco advertising came after Massachusetts adopted a ban on tobacco ads near playgrounds and schools. But the court, in a 5-4 decision, said states cannot add their own restrictions to a 1969 federal law that prohibits cigarette ads on TV and requires warning labels on cigarette packages.

At least three major cities -- New York, Chicago and Baltimore -- also have local ordinances limiting the promotion of tobacco products that appear to be erased by the Supreme Court's decision. The Massachusetts attorney general says he will push for congressional actions to change the 1969 law to accomplish the same thing.

It's interesting how the free-speech ramifications of both the limits on campaign contributions and the right of states to control the advertising of cigarettes near schools have drawn so little notice from the public.

The First Amendment guarantees, like so many other constitutionally guaranteed rights, are of little concern to most Americans -- unless they become personally affected by some restrictive government action that clamps down on personal liberties.

In essence, the Supreme Court says commercial speech and political speech are different from other forms of speech. And, the court says, government can control them.

Not all justices agree, nor do many Americans who believe they should have the right to spend money to say what they want, even if it promotes a product or candidate, without government interference.

If the guarantees of the First Amendment can be so easily bent to conform with the whims of government, how safe is any other constitutional guarantee?