“Ludicrous” was the word that campaign finance “reformer” Fred Wertheimer used to de scribe Thursday’s decision by the Federal Election Commission to allow the host committees of political conventions to raise private money. Mr. Wertheimer’s objection, according to the Associated Press, was that it creates a loophole for companies, individuals, or unions trying to sway politicians with big donations of the kind that were banned under the McCain-Feingold law. The FEC chairwoman, Ellen Weintraub, was quoted by the wire as saying that donations to the convention host committees are essentially nonpartisan. It’s like sponsoring a sporting event like the Super Bowl. “Businesses contribute because they want the promotional benefit,” she said.

Under the twisted logic of the FEC, in other words, the shareholders of a beer company have the right to give away free beer to those attending the Republican National Convention in New York in 2004 only because the company wants to sell more of its brand of beer. If the purpose is to thank Republicans for voting for lower beer tax es, or to help elect more Republicans friendly to lower taxes on beer instead of Democrats who want to raise beer taxes — well, the FEC seems to be saying that kind of speech or spending would be suspect, perhaps even potentially illegal.

Well, ludicrous strikes us as exactly the right word for this situation, the outgrowth of the 2002 McCain-Feingold law that President Bush signed at the behest of “reformers” like Mr. Wertheimer. You’d think that under the First Amendment to the Constitution, political spending, or speech, would have more protection — or at least, the same standard of protection — as commercial speech would. After all, in drafting the amendment on freedom of speech — which includes the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” — the Bill of Rights’ framers clearly had in mind the right of individuals to engage their political leaders in debate on issues. The Super Bowl hadn’t yet been invented. But under the McCain-Feingold law, political speech and spending on campaign commercials is subject to all kinds of unusual and stifling restrictions having to do with things like how many days before an election it is, how much money is being spent, and how old the person doing the spending is.

It’s gotten so that Americans seeking to participate in the politics of their country face more regulatory hurdles than those seeking to sponsor a sporting event. And it’s not just in Washington, either. Here in the State of New York, the lobbying commission has reportedly launched an investigation into a City Hall rally that music executive Russell Simmons sponsored to try to prompt changes in the state’s tough Rockefeller drug laws. It’s one thing to investigate the reports of Mr. Simmons flying state officials around on his helicopter. But it makes a mockery of the First Amendment to suggest that anyone who wants to hold a rally for a cause needs to register with the state lobbying commission.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear on September 8 oral arguments in the constitutional challenge to the McCain-Feingold law. If the justices do the right thing and strike down much of the law as unconstitutional, they’ll be telling Americans that their rights to participate in the political process by airing political advertisements, promoting ideas, supporting or opposing politicians, and contributing to political parties are protected by the Constitution every bit as much as a beer company’s right to promote its brand at the Super Bowl.