Monday’s Supreme Court ruling affirming the power of states to limit campaign contributions is a long overdue decision that has the remarkable dual effect of preserving the status quo as it clears the way for change.

By a 6-3 vote, the court upheld Missouri’s $1,075 cap on individual contributions to candidates for state office. In the first ruling on contribution limits in nearly a quarter century, the majority essentially said that money is not constitutionally protected free speech — it’s nothing more than property. And, the justices said, it’s property that either corrupts or creates the perception of corruption

With the most expensive federal election ever — estimates run as high as $3 billion — just months away and already alienating voters at a record pace, Congressional opponents of campaign-finance reform are scrambling for cover. Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican who has sworn to uphold the free-speech rights of large bundles of cash with his last breath, quickly changed tactics, now saying the ruling is narrow, it did not address the unregulated and enormous “soft” money contributions that come from business, labor and other well-heeled interest groups. As an example of just how shaky that ground now is, Sen. McConnell adopted this illogical position: the ruling does not impact soft money because soft money is used to build party organizations, not to promote candidates; no law regulating soft money will stand because it inevitably will impede candidates’ ability to promote themselves.

A more realistic, and palatable, view is taken by Sen. Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, a leading proponent of the reform measure that has twice cleared the House and twice failed to clear a Republican-led Senate filibuster, the last time by just five votes. Those senators who have opposed reform strictly on constitutional grounds will either have to climb on the reform bandwagon or find another poor excuse.

For Maine, the ruling is extraordinarily timely. The November 2000 election will be the first use of the Clean Election Act passed by voters in 1996. The law limiting contributions for state candidates and setting up a public funding mechanism was upheld by a federal judge last fall. A decision on an appeal of that ruling is expected within weeks and the Supreme Court’s position should hold considerable sway. And with tax-filing season in full swing, there can be no better way to celebrate this victory for common sense than to check off that $3 Clean Election Fund box on the state form.