Last Saturday, the day after Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt signed Senate Bill 1038, which repeals the limits on campaign contribution to state political candidates, we pulled up behind a car on Chippewa Street and noticed a bumper sticker that read: “We don’t have a democracy. We have an auction.”

The timing was accidental but the truth was undeniable: Beginning Aug. 28, Missourians (and for that matter, non-Missourians interested in buying a piece of state government) can donate any amount they want to candidates for any political office in the state, as long as they’re willing to be identified publicly.

The contribution limits that voters approved overwhelmingly just 14 years ago — limits that later were upheld by the United States Supreme Court — were tossed out this spring on mostly party-line votes by the Republican-controlled Legislature. It was the second year in a row that this had happened. Last year, the state Supreme Court threw out the new law for technical reasons. This year, it’s likely to stick.

In fact, this year’s bill is even worse than the one the Supreme Court threw out. Last year, the bill removed the limits on individual contributions but also eliminated the practice of laundering campaign contributions through state party committees or issue committees. The Legislature said this would allow greater “transparency.” This year, nobody brought up transparency. The laundromat is still in business.

Starting Aug. 28, Missouri will have the worst of both worlds: unlimited money and limited transparency.

How does it work? Let’s say you want to open the world’s largest rattlesnake ranch next to a day care center. After Aug. 28, if you’ve got a million bucks to donate, you can do so openly. Today, you have to funnel the money through party or issue committees, making it harder to trace. You’re not allowed to tell the committees how to spend the money, but most of them are happy to cooperate.

In fact, as David Lieb of the Associated Press bureau in Jefferson City reported earlier this month, the campaign of state Sen. Chris Koster of Belton, who’s running for the Democratic nomination for attorney general, has provided typing and courier services.

In one instance Mr. Lieb cited, a campaign aide for Mr. Koster provided solicitation letters and donation letters and then picked up checks to launder for the Koster campaign. The money was donated by a group called the “Economic Growth Council,” set up by an old pal of Mr. Koster, Chuck Hatfield, a former top aide to Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon, the presumptive Democratic nominee for governor.

After Aug. 28, this kind of low-rent subterfuge no longer will be necessary. But if a candidate wants to avoid the potential embarrassment of being tied to the rattlesnake ranching industry, he’ll still have the party committee laundromat option.

This is bad enough at the state government level, where a good reporter occasionally will track down the real source of laundered money. But the new campaign law applies to every political office in Missouri. If a local zoning board is preventing you from opening your rattlesnake ranch, you can pay to elect a new city council.

The United States Supreme Court consistently has ruled that campaign spending is a protected form of speech, but it has allowed limits on individual contributions. At the federal level, the limit is $2,300 in the primary and another $2,300 in the general election. In Missouri, the old limits were $1,350 per election for statewide candidates, with lower limits for other offices.

Federal election laws also allow candidates to choose to run their primary and general election campaigns with public funds. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, broke a pledge to abide by the federal limits. Mr. Obama claims that by tapping a wide base of Internet supporters, he has created an alternative form of public financing.

That argument is pragmatic, not principled, and particularly disappointing in one who claims the mantle of reformer. But there are tens of millions of contributors to a presidential campaign and a far brighter spotlight. At the state and local level, the number of contributors is far more limited, and the spotlight not nearly so bright. The opportunity for sleaze is enormous.

Politicians have no real incentive to do the right thing. So in 2009, Missourians who want to regain control of their own state government will have to do what they did in 1994: Take matters into their own hands with an initiative petition drive. Put the limits back, and this time close the laundromat, too.