JEFFERSON CITY -- A Missouri Supreme Court ruling last Thursday looks like a short-term financial blow to incumbent GOP Gov. Matt Blunt in his re-election bid next year.

But longer-term campaign financing for Blunt and his likely Democratic challenger, state Attorney General Jay Nixon, isn't expected to be seriously impacted by the Supreme Court's decision.

In James Trout v. State of Missouri et al. (docket# SC88476) the Supreme Court reinstated limits on individual donations to election candidates that applied before a law change last year. Under that regime the maximum individual donation per election was set at $1,275.

House Bill 1900 (HB1900) of 2006 removed the individual campaign donation limits but added restrictions on who can seek public office. It also banned donating to political campaigns during state legislative sessions, called "blackout periods."

A lower court declared the blackout periods invalid and threw them out uncontested, which led the Supreme Court to throw the repeal of the campaign contribution limits out with them.

"The course of this legislation makes clear that the campaign contribution limits would not have been repealed without the concurrent enactment of the black-out period," wrote Justice Stephen N. Limbaugh in a unanimous opinion.

Missouri's two biggest political fundraisers - Blunt and Nixon - now face having to return possibly millions of dollars in funds that broke the $1,275 limit. That hurts Blunt because he has built a huge financial lead over Nixon since the limit was repealed Jan. 1, most of it in large checks.

In the six months since the repeal to June 30, Blunt's campaign has garnered $4.7 million compared to Nixon's $2.3 million, the Kansas City Star reported. In the first quarter 85 percent of Blunt's donors kicked in $10,000+ each compared to just 29 percent of Nixon's.

But restoring the old campaign finance laws is unlikely to make much long-term difference to either candidate's ability to hoover up the cash, note commentators like the Star's Steve Kraske. That's because the old system, now the new system, "has loopholes galore."

As a result "all that really changes is that well-to-do donors would have to write multiple checks to slip their favorites $50,000 or $100,000," Kraske wrote. "Big deal."

The Supreme Court is now taking submissions on what to do with the excess campaign donations.