We recall a cartoon depicting an arrow marked "You Are Here" pointing at a spot between a rock and a hard place.
That image - with money as the rock, politics as the hard place and free speech written on the arrow - came to mind as we read the Associated Press story, "Data: Nearly 5 dozen give a third of all "16 campaign cash," in Sunday's News Tribune.
The story reported that among the $380 million donated to the 2016 presidential campaign to date, about one- third, or $126 million, came from fewer than 60 contributors.
The fund-raising data referenced in the AP story reinforces comments by Doyle McManus in an April column. McManus wrote: "That's where the action is right now in the not-very-majestic process by which we are choosing our next president. The most important players aren't the candidates; they're the mega-donors. In American politics, money talks."
McManus added: "The race for big money is bigger this year than in previous cycles for another reason: Campaigns are still discovering how they can exploit the freedom from regulation that the Supreme Court has granted since its Citizens United decision in 2010."
The field for the 2016 presidential race is crowded, and what each candidate needs is a Daddy Warbucks. McManus and the AP identify some of the mega-donors fulfilling that role.
The data establishes that big money from single sources plays a significant role in election campaigns, not only national contests, but in Missouri races as well.
Two questions to be asked are: What motivates mega-contributors; and does the influence of big money taint elections?
The AP story postulates a variety of motivations, including donors: supporting candidates who reflect their philosophy and will advance their priorities; seeking government assignments, including diplomatic posts; and reinforcing personal friendships.
The sinister motivation - often suspected by voters - is the quid pro quo, or donating money to buy subsequent political favors.
A response is to impose limits on the method or amount of campaign contributions.
The dilemma is limits on donations also limit free speech.
We have heard the argument that monetary contributions are not speech. The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees, and so do we. Money to support or oppose a candidate or issue is advocacy speech.
How, then, can sinister deeds be prevented?
Require full transparency of donations, empower the public with knowledge and trust the voters to decide.
The problem with imposing limits is they tend to be arbitrary, are not always effective, dilute free speech and mistrust the collective wisdom of voters.
Shine a bright light on dark money, identify contributors, inform the voters before elections and trust them to make wise decisions. That's a formula that doesn't erode the First Amendment right of free speech.