Back to CFR: The issue that wouldn't die. We hashed this out pretty thoroughly way back when, but it continues to surface. Here, David Tell of the Weekly Standard goes hunting for substance in the legislative-judicial-regulatory thickets of campaign finance governance. Things are awfully confusing, numerous erstwhile "crusaders" have switched sides on soft-money regulation, and the Democrats have fully woken up to having shot themselves in the foot with the McCain-Feingold pistol they were twirling with such apparent dexterity a few short years ago.

The soft-money regulation is not the most constitutionally troublesome part of CFR, though it is proving to be a nightmare to implement. (The restriction on all third-party advocacy within 60 days of an election, to me, was always the grossest example of stifling speech.) Still, I hope some strong lessons are being carried away from this. The foolish (and bipartisan) belief seems to be that political advocacy can be effectively regulated, if only we can tweak the wording just a bit more. Hear me on this: The regulations could be 6 pages or 60,000 pages long; it doesn't make a difference. The only inroads made are on what you are free to do with your money. The parties and the 527s can afford staffs of full-time lawyers and regulatory experts gaming the system and stretching the loopholes. What've you got?