Wednesday's opinion by the Star-Bulletin regarding the Supreme Court's recent ruling protecting political speech rights manages to both enlighten and confuse.

The opinion rightly notes that "The principle of free speech justifiably trumps restrictions on political activism" and "restricting expenditures by unions and corporations can be regarded as gagging speech."

How, then, can the Star-Bulletin possibly justify further regulations that restrict political activism and gag speech? Demanding that television stations not be allowed to air such ads is just as much a violation of First Amendment political rights as the rule the Supreme Court struck down.

One hundred years of regulations and limits on who can participate in politics have left the United States with a system that protects incumbents, suppresses the First Amendment political rights of citizens and amplifies some preferred voices while silencing others.

Instead of calling for more regulations to stifle speech, the Star-Bulletin should be advocating for less regulation and more speech.

Sean Parnell is president of the Center for Competitive Politics and is on the Board of Advisers for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. This commentary originally appeared as a letter to the editor in the June 29, 2007 Honolulu Star-Bulletin.