The headline in the Washington Post yesterday read, “Clark May Have Broken Law in Paid Speeches.” It seems that while the Democrats’ front-runner-of-the-week hasn’t put forth many policy positions yet (except on Iraq, an issue on which his positions are myriad), he’s getting a firsthand look at just how chilling to free speech regulation of political speech can be.

The flap is this, as reported in the Post story: “Clark, a newcomer to presidential politics, touted his candidacy during paid appearances at DePauw University in Indiana and other campuses after he entered the presidential race on Sept. 17.” It may sound harmless enough, but the Post continues. “Under the laws governing the financing of presidential campaigns, candidates cannot be paid by corporations, labor unions, individuals, or even universities for campaign-related events. The Federal Election Commission … considers such paid political appearances akin to a financial contribution to a candidate.”

General Clark is apparently paid as much as $30,000 for the speeches. To determine whether the general’s speeches could be considered campaigning, the Post dug up incriminating details such as these: “In his speeches, Clark has talked about his campaign positions and criticized President Bush’s policies,” and “Clark ‘absolutely’ covered his political views on everything from education to the economy,” said Ken Bode, a visiting professor of journalism who moderated the session.”

Imagine that, a presidential candidate exercising the right to free speech in a speech. “It seems he didn’t know he needed lawyers,” the director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute, John Samples, told The New York Sun yesterday. “The real story here is the complexity of the rules,” he added. “Once he started talking about his campaign, he made it into a campaign appearance.”

The experts the Post contacted couldn’t quite parse whether General Clark had violated any laws. A former FEC general counsel, Larry Noble, said that the speeches were “problematic” and that insertion of campaign-related items “can”turn a speech into a campaign speech. Someone from the watchdog group Common Cause hedged that the FEC would have to look into the “totality” of General Clark’s speeches.

If General Clark is found to have violated the law, he may well have to give back the money he got for his appearances, putting a new spin on the phrase “free speech.” “You can’t campaign and do things for personal income at the same time,” Mr. Samples said. And this, in itself, chills political speech. The spectacle of professors, lawyers, and activists being unable to figure out what is permissible and impermissible speech in talks by a presidential candidate ahead of an election is quite a spectacle. Maybe it will convince General Clark of the folly of fiddling with free speech.