I have been an active supporter of the American Civil Liberties Union for many years, but I regret its opposition (as reported by The New Mexican on Jan. 29) to a bill to ban contributions made to political candidates in New Mexico by lobbyists, state contractors and those seeking government subsidies. The ACLU's position is based on an interpretation of the First Amendment that goes beyond any of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions concerning campaign finance legislation.

In the Buckley v. Valeo decision (1976), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits any limitation on expenditures from a candidate's own funds, but it upheld restrictions on contributions a candidate may receive from others. The court said that limiting contributions "entails only a marginal restriction upon the contributor's ability to engage in free communication" and is constitutionally justified by such "weighty interests" as "the prevention of corruption and the appearance of corruption spawned by the real or imagined coercive influence of large financial contributions on candidates' positions and on their actions if elected to office."

Just recently, the Supreme Court held that First Amendment protection in the political arena extends to corporations, but its opinion explicitly recognized and did not disturb the Buckley case's distinction between expenditures, which may not be limited, and contributions, which may be restricted in the interest of preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption.

The sponsor of the proposed New Mexico legislation cites a desire to deal with pay-to-play activity and other forms of corrupt influence, and that is what motivates the support of Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and Think New Mexico. In my view, that is a sufficiently "weighty interest" to justify the "marginal" impact the bill would have on the First Amendment rights of contributors.

Jack Justice is a retired Philadelphia lawyer who lives in Santa Fe.