George Leef devotes his latest Forbes column to an examination of negative consequences associated with campaign finance limits.

When Congress opened Pandora’s Box with the Campaign Finance Act in 1974, it created the worst sort of growth industry. That is, an industry that does nothing except produce lots of regulations that get in the way of actions Americans have a perfect right to take.

People now have to comply with a universe of rules that get in the way of free speech, but that hasn’t made politics one bit “cleaner.” Fortunately, the First Amendment hasn’t been completely extinguished, so when people challenge campaign finance laws, they can win.

Here is a case to consider. In 2011, the Phoenix suburb of Fountain Hills proposed a bond issue. One citizen, Dina Galassini, did not want to see the measure pass and let her feelings be known by emailing 23 of her fellow residents to organize a campaign against it. She and her co-conspirators made some signs they would wave around town to generate opposition.

Sounds like a pure instance of democracy in action, right?

Ah, but Ms. Galassini’s email was brought to the attention of Fountain Hills election officials, who wrote her a stern letter informing her that she could engage in no further political speech until she had properly registered as a political action committee (PAC). Under the law, whenever two or more people associate for a political purpose and either spend money or seek contributions, they are required to register under Arizona law. All PACs must file regular reports, keep records for at least three years, and disclose all donors who contribute over $50.

That’s a substantial burden for ordinary folks who just want to make their opinions about political matters known. It’s like the old poll taxes that made voting costly. In a January 2 editorial, “Campaign-Finance Bondage,” the Wall Street Journal nailed the truth: “Campaign-finance laws have become a trap for citizens least likely to know the rules, leaving political speech to groups that can afford fleets of lawyers to defend their rights.”

The good news? An Arizona judge ruled in Galassini’s favor.