At a time when elected officials are being marched off to jail for corrupt activities, Monday's Supreme Court decision on Vermont's campaign finance law gives money an even larger role in elections.

While the immediate effect of the decision is modest—except in Vermont—the signs are not good. The decision tells us that we must put to bed any pretensions we might have that the currently constituted Supreme Court is a friend to fairness in political opportunity. It also tells us the work to limit big money is back in our hands.

A quick summary of the decision shows that Vermont's comprehensive reform law is largely gutted. Nationwide, spending limits are out, while contribution limits are still OK—though some laws may now be challenged. And this decision should strengthen our resolve to pass public campaign financing at the local, state and federal level.

When Vermont residents looked at their political culture in 1997, they were concerned that the kind of "big-money politics" that dominates so many places in America might be corrupting Vermont, too. So they held many days of hearings and took testimony from scores of legislators and citizens about bills that weren't passed because of contributors' interests, positions that weren't taken and self-censorship by elected officials. After all that was done, they passed a law to keep big money from corrupting their state's politics.

Vermont wanted elections where big donors couldn't control the campaigns and candidates. Accordingly, they set modest contribution limits, from $200 for state house races to $400 for the governor's race. They wanted campaigns where candidates didn't have to spend all of their time raising money. So they set expenditure limits—$300,000 for governor, less for other offices. And they wanted all kinds of people to be able to run. So they included public financing as well. Only it wasn't to be. The law was immediately challenged and hasn't been in effect since.

Now the Supreme Court has overruled Vermont's campaign finance law. The court, in its fractured ruling—there were six different opinions—has reaffirmed its position that, for now, campaign spending limits are barred by the First Amendment. And they have reaffirmed their position that contribution limits—unless they're too low—are constitutional. So Vermont loses its law and probably goes back to the $1,000 contribution limits that existed before. But spending limits are gone completely.

It is unfortunate, and unexpected, that through the entire proceeding, the court seemed to have paid little attention to how campaigns are actually run in Vermont, and how much less they cost there than elsewhere in the country. If we believe that local and state jurisdictions ought to be able to run laboratories of democracy, and search for better ways to have an engaged democratic populace, why should the court step in to say Vermont had it wrong? At the time of the trial, for instance, it cost less than $50 to run three ads on the most expensive cable station in Burlington. This is not New York City. But the law is dead, so advocates in Vermont—like the Vermont PIRG—will turn their attention to a new law quickly.

Of immediate relevance to other states and cities is the court's ruling on contribution limits. Here we should have some concerns (though not too many). The court said that Vermont's law is unconstitutional because not only are the contribution limits low, but they don't increase with inflation, distinguish political parties from individuals, allow separate contributions in the primary and general elections or exempt volunteer activities. It is possible that this could usher in challenges to other laws by those who count on completely unrestricted money as a gateway to electoral success, though it is a rare law that would meet all these same conditions.

On spending limits, the court just got it wrong. Justice Stevens, in his powerful dissent, put it this way:

When campaign costs are so high that only the rich have the reach to throw their hats into the ring, we fail 'to protect the political process from undue influence of large aggregations of capital and to promote individual responsibility for democratic government.' ... I am firmly persuaded that the Framers would have been appalled by the impact of modern fundraising practices on the ability of elected officials to perform their public responsibilities.

We should not give up on spending limits. A recent poll shows that 87 percent of Americans like the idea of spending limits. And just as it took three tries to get the Supreme Court to rule the poll tax unconstitutional, this battle is not done, either.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, this decision should serve as a wake-up call around public financing. All of us who seek elections where people of means cannot pick the victors need to intensify our support for public financing systems of the type that are now law in Maine, Arizona and Connecticut, and in many cities across the country. Public Campaign, Common Cause, and others are leading the charge to pass public financing in states and localities across the country. Their "Voters First " pledge is an effort to get congressional candidates to commit to public funding. Ultimately, we need to press for federal legislation providing public financing for congressional races.

This decision marks a lost opportunity to end the arms race for campaign cash and make elections a contest of ideas rather than dollars, but the struggle for reform will continue.