JEFFERSON CITY -- The Missouri Supreme Court now knows that the Democrat attorney general thinks they should give it back but the Republican Senate Majority Leader thinks they should be allowed to keep it.

The Supreme Court will decide what political candidates in Missouri must do with the newly "excess" contributions they received after an SC ruling last month reinstated campaign-donation ceilings.

And all eyes are now on Republican incumbent Matt Blunt and his Democratic challenger, Attorney General Jay Nixon, for governor in 2008. Blunt had raised over twice Nixon's $2.3 million through June 30 but both would fall to $1 million if forced to return donations after the Trout v. Missouri ruling.

Nixon's office, representing the state of Missouri and the Missouri Ethics Commission, argued that all campaign contributions above the new limit (max. $1,275 per person) be returned. It allowed exceptions for candidates already elected or whose campaign had closed when the SC ruled last month.

But construction consultant James Trout, who originally filed his eponymous SC ruling one day after campaign-donation limits were abolished Jan. 1, 2007, opposes any exceptions, the AP reported. His attorney said candidates should have known, because of the lawsuit, that taking big checks was a risk.

Trout is currently a candidate for the 2008 House of Representatives as a Democrat, running in St. Louis's wealthy Webster Groves area.

GOP Senate Majority Leader Charlie Shields and the state Republican Party argued that candidates should keep money raised before the ruling, letting Blunt keep his big advantage. Shields' brief argued they were following the law of the time and shouldn't be punished for out-raising their opponents.

"Plain and simple, the 'benefit' the attorney general seeks is the right to limit candidates' political speech," Shields' brief, quoted by the AP, read in part.

The Supreme Court will decide by the end of this month what candidates must do with their donations that exceed the new limit.