Overrule the Supreme Court on campaign finance reform

'Separation of campaign and state' misunderstands the Constitution and harms the country

it's time for a constitutional amendment

So what can be done? Retreating from campaign reform would only entrench the court majority's view that managing our democracy is its job, not ours. Instead, concerned citizens should make their voices heard — by supporting advocacy groups and candidates that back meaningful campaign reform, and by demanding that Congress and the states enact reform legislation within the space left open by the court's recent decisions.

The proposed federal Fair Elections Now Act is a good model; that statute would match small private campaign donations with larger amounts of public funds. Other promising federal initiatives include the U.S. Shareholder Protection Act, which would require disclosure and shareholder approval of much corporate political spending, and the DISCLOSE Act, which would close loopholes that allow undisclosed campaign spending by third parties.

These work-arounds are necessary in the short term, but we shouldn't stop there; the court majority's retrograde rulings have done too much damage. There is only one sure way to decisively reverse Supreme Court decisions that misinterpret our Constitution, and that is to amend the Constitution itself to correct them. Amendment is no small thing, and it shouldn't be done in haste. But it is hard to imagine a cause more worthy of an amendment than restoring the people's control over their own democracy.

Christopher J. Peters is a professor of law at the University of Baltimore and the author of the book "A Matter of Dispute: Morality, Democracy, and Law." His email is [e-mail].