We can understand the concern and even apprehension by news that spending on Pennsylvania’s 2024 political campaigns was dominated by a small number of donors.

We understand the fears and worries that our politics can become beholden to a small number of influential parties, serving their needs and not the needs of the middle class or of our rural communities.

But we must caution that past efforts to curb this perceived influence have carried their own risks.

We believe we should live in a free society, exercising our God-given rights as we see fit. And the right to argue the case for the policies we each prefer and to spend our money in pursuit of persuading our neighbors and fellow citizens of the wisdom of those policies is tantamount to those freedoms.

Attempting to limit or constrain who can contribute to a campaign or how much impedes the liberties of Americans to present the case for the policies they support — in effect, limiting their right to speak freely. Moreover, questions about whether such limitations would level the proverbial playing field or would instead provide constituencies favored by the political establishment are completely valid.

Part of the way in which such a society can function, of course, is transparency — such as the reporting by Spotlight PA that detailed who was donating to last year’s campaigns. All Americans should be able to assist in promoting the candidacies they support — even if wealthier Americans have the resources to provide greater financial support. But the candidates and campaigns should be transparent about where their resources come from, so that voters can individually conclude for themselves to whom candidates may be indebted.

More empowerment of voters, with more information, must be a preferable course of action to the government limiting what people can say and how people can spend their money on saying it.