In a case called Randall et al. v. Sorrell et al., the U.S. Supreme Court has trashed Vermont's 1997 effort at campaign-finance reform. It was yet another indication that these are tough times in America for reformers who think of themselves as progressives, and heady times for those who call themselves conservatives.

This week's 6-3 decision involved six written opinions, which must be read as tea leaves. In the end, a majority of the justices left standing the controversial 1976 Buckley v. Valeo case, which equates political money with political speech but permits states to limit campaign contributions. The justices found Vermont's Act 64 unconstitutional in limiting how much candidates for state office could spend to get themselves elected, and they determined that the limits were too strict on how much money supporters could donate to candidates.

So much for states' rights and home rule. It's an increasing source of mystery to which cases a majority of the justices will apply such principles, and which cases they will decide on an ad-hoc basis.

This ruling probably does not mean the court will now determine, state by state, what levels of campaign contributions are acceptable. The likely effect of the decision is to deter other states from even trying to separate money and politics. For a while at least the American political system will continue to float on a sea of advertising money — constitutionally, and sometimes corruptly.

It's interesting to note that the principal decision in this case was written by Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the justices often identified as being a progressive. But Breyer's role here seems to be the chewing gum that held together a sharply divided majority. There are indications that three of the justices — maybe more — would gladly kill off any and all limits on money in politics, even the narrow limits inherent in Buckley v. Valeo.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens backed Vermont's effort and wrote that he would eliminate Buckley's protections for moneyed interests. Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also wanted to let Vermont try out its law.

Interestingly, this distressing ruling comes on the heels of a bipartisan effort launched a few months ago by several former U.S. senators who want to replace special-interest campaign money with public funds. The bipartisan "Just $6" campaign is headed by former senators Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, Alan Simpson of Wyoming and Warren Rudman of New Hampshire. They contend that the political playing field could be leveled by allocating modest amounts of public funds to candidates who voluntarily agree not to exceed spending limits. The idea is that, even if other candidates spend personal fortunes and truckloads of special-interest money, the Just $6 program would assure that all legitimate candidates have enough reasonable and clean resources to state their positions and answer attacks.

Monday's ruling would not affect such a reform. Indeed, by making it all but impossible for states to rid campaigns of the corruptive influence of special-interest money, the ruling might give Just $6 a boost. For, despite what you read in Randall et al. v. Sorrell et al. and in Buckley v. Valeo, an important free-market adage remains valid. In politics, as elsewhere, you get what you pay for.