Walking the line between an unconstitutional ban on free speech and an atmosphere where local government feels bought and paid for is difficult. But it is a balance that must be struck.

The proposal to retool relatively recent campaign reforms takes a couple of steps in the right direction - one regrettable, perhaps - and another that doesn't go far enough. And one big step in the wrong direction.

The part that may require a little nose-holding is repeal of the rule that banned people who have contracts to build things for or sell things to the county from contributing any amount of money to candidates for county office.

There are many people who stand to gain or lose from county officials making this decision or that, including county employees, developers and just about everybody who lives or works here. Those who do business with the county are not dangerous enough to be singled out for such a prohibition, especially when, as Councilwoman Jenny Wilson points out, it may be unconstitutional.

A more equitable approach is the essence of the second proposed change, lowering the contribution cap from one donor to one candidate from the current $5,000 per election cycle to $2,500. A suggestion that it be lower still, $1,000, would be even better.

The blot on this proposal is one that would exempt from all limits and reporting requirements the work that political parties do, and the money they spend, on behalf of candidates. That's a really bad idea, as it amounts to a bypass around all the other campaign rules.

A companion proposal concerning who can lobby county officials is also good, and also falls short. The ordinance would ban county employees, but not elected officials, from lobbying county government for a year after they leave county service.

But the elected officials are the ones who have the most to sell when they put their expertise, experience and good name on the auction block. Their value for such purposes only exists because of what they learned - and who they met - while on the public payroll. That value added was paid for by the taxpayers, and should not be used for opposing interests.