The role of money in American political campaigns has been universally ballyhooed. Nobody really likes it, as the disproportionate influence of money seems to have a dissonance with the democratic ideal of "one person, one vote."

Opponents of reform say regardless of our immediate wishes, monetary contributions to political campaigns are a form of free speech under the First Amendment. Proponents of reform like Senators John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis. disagree, arguing that money isn't free speech.

Resolving this basic disagreement seems difficult, as there isn't an accepted method of deciding whether money falls within the bounds of free speech. The Supreme Court was divided 5-4 in McConnell v. FEC, which addressed whether the Campaign Reform Act violated the free speech provisions of the First Amendment. Far from clarifying the issue, the court issued a tangled mess of opinions, concurrences and dissents.

We should tackle it from a politically open position that examines the positive and negative effects money has on politics while sidestepping the arguments over conceptual jargon.

The issue is clarified by an examination of how power is transferred from one person to another in circumstances that are clearly free speech (like an endorsement), followed by a comparison to monetary contributions.

With an endorsement, it's a transfer of power from a citizen to a politician. An endorsement gains its power from how well it's known to the public figure's supporters, and that generally is a function of how widely it's known to the general populace.

Contributions of money to a political campaign also transfer some power. The power of money is irrespective of the contribution's fame, since the cash of the commoner and the celebrity spends the same and most contributors tend to lean towards privacy. This secretive tendency is what people fear about monetary contributions, and what distinguishes them from the wider realm of free speech.

To eliminate this distinction, we should bring monetary contributions to the level with other free speech or quash it completely. Looking at politics in America, I don't believe money ever will be relegated to a non-factor. Stifling regulations will drive the flow of money underground, increasing the problem. Instead, we should make the process of contributing money more transparent to outside scrutiny.

Opensecrets.org is one non-governmental agency's effort to clarify who's giving donations and who's receiving them. The site tabulates all the information about various candidates' donors.

On the governmental side, we should shift our efforts from pushing money out of politics to making its effects as obvious as possible. This might involve adjusting the McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws, but I won't pretend to be an expert on what needs to be changed.

The democratic process would be improved if both sides abandoned their tug-of-war over semantics and instead fought over how to make the electoral system more open.

Greg Brown is a junior in philosophy. Please send your comment to opinion@spub.ksu.edu