Real change never comes easily - particularly when it means pulling at the purse strings of a political establishment that will fight at all costs to preserve the status quo.

Take the fight over Amendment 54, Colorado's recently passed clean-government law.

Even though the people have heard the arguments and made their decision, the special interests are now filing lawsuits aimed at gutting the new law of its key provisions.

And even though several of the litigants are well-intentioned individuals who have rightly earned the respect of our communities, that doesn't mean the case being pushed by their lawyers - and now the Rocky Mountain News ("54, over and out," Feb. 2) - is any more valid.

In fact, it was disappointing to see the Rocky so badly misrepresent the facts concerning Amendment 54 in its recent editorial endorsing these lawsuits.

"Campaign contributions are the equivalent of political speech," the Rocky boldly proclaims, despite consistent Supreme Court rulings to the contrary. Independent expenditures can be considered protected speech, but not political contributions.

Yet even if money did equal speech under the law, the Rocky repeatedly minimizes the critical fact that Amendment 54's contribution ban applies only to entities receiving government contracts that are not competitively bid.

This is a key distinction, because it means any entity wishing to make campaign contributions needs only to find two competitors to bid on its sole-source contract - which, incidentally, increases competition for government projects and enhances value to taxpayers.

Unfortunately, rather than participating in a competitive bidding process that would free them from the prohibitions of Amendment 54, the decision has obviously been made to try to eliminate the new law.

This is not surprising when you consider the huge taxpayer-funded "return on investment" that these groups receive from their no-bid contracts, which is often as high as $500 or more for every dollar they spend lining the pockets of elected officials.

Why else was nearly $30 million spent by a coalition of public employee unions, utilities and nonprofits (i.e., the primary recipients of no-bid contracts) to defeat Amendment 54 in the first place?

Clearly, these groups want to continue reaping a tidy return on their investment - at the taxpayers' expense.

The Rocky editorial also states that politicians serving on the boards of "nonprofits" would be banned from contributing to their own campaigns, citing the example of Denver City Councilman Charlie Brown.

While it is true that Brown can no longer donate to his own political committee, what the Rocky neglects to mention is that candidates themselves can still make unlimited expenditures for their own campaigns.

The Rocky also goes to great lengths to link collective bargaining agreements with competitively-bid contracts - which is simply laughable. Collective bargaining agreements confer exclusive representational status, and exist and operate in complete absence of competition.

This is precisely why they were included in Amendment 54's provisions.

Of course, the most dangerous assumption made by the Rocky is one that flies in the face of its proud journalistic tradition.

In attempting to debunk a recent U.S. District Court ruling that upheld Connecticut's pay-to-play ban - the latest in a long line of rulings upholding such laws - the Rocky blithely presumes that there's no need for the amendment because "there's no similar corruption issue here."

Such a statement not only strains credulity, it ignores literally thousands of its own press clippings.

Protecting the First Amendment freedoms of Coloradans is essential to a vibrant, functioning democracy, but the First Amendment does not protect pay-to-play schemes that corrode the integrity of our public institutions.

That is why Coloradans supported Amendment 54, and why courts have consistently upheld its provisions.

Tom Lucero is a University of Colorado regent.