How much longer can supporters of campaign-finance reform continue to argue that their futile efforts to remove money from politics have no ramifications for free speech and the First Amendment?

That nonsense is laid bare in a case that challenges the limits of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case today.

The issue concerns a Wisconsin anti-abortion group that sought to run ads before the 2004 election that encouraged voters to call the Badger State's two U.S. senators, Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, both Democrats, and urge them to oppose efforts to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees.

Under McCain-Feingold, the group was prohibited from airing the advertisements.

In other words, it is now illegal for certain groups to engage in certain types of political speech prior to a federal election.

What good is the First Amendment if it doesn't protect the rights of all Americans to engage in precisely such conduct?

Consider this astonishing quote from a brief the Bush administration filed with the court in defense of McCain-Feingold: "Advertisements exhorting interested citizens to contact their elected representatives may also have the purpose of influencing those citizens' votes." Heaven forbid!

In its response, Wisconsin Right to Life argued correctly that "Incumbent politicians should not be able to shield themselves from lobbying about upcoming votes in Congress through campaign finance regulations."

Indeed. Unfortunately, incumbent protection -- not "good government" -- is exactly what McCain-Feingold is all about.

When the high court upheld McCain-Feingold in 2003, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the swing vote. Let's hope the panel's new makeup moves the court to reconsider the law's clearly unconstitutional ban on issue ads.

The First Amendment and the Bill of Rights depend upon it.