By Jay Ambrose If American democracy is finally done in, the perpetrators will unlikely be Hitlerian figures whose strutting authoritarianism is plain to see, but instead a collection of well-meaning, schoolmarm-like activists who aim to restrict our freedoms for our own supposed good. They may well be members of Common Cause. You never figure an outfit like Common Cause to be a danger to the republic's must crucial principles, do you? But be vigilant: Common Cause is in the forefront of those cutting the First Amendment down to an imperceptible size. Common Cause sees itself in another light, of course. Its president, Chellie Pingree, is quoted by a Maine newspaper as telling university students that her group's purpose "is to make sure that everyone has a voice" on issues of moment. So why is it that Common Cause has so wholeheartedly supported a campaign finance reform law that denies citizens their untethered say in politics? Stop and think for a moment about how average citizens get heard by those who represent them. Maybe a citizen will write a letter to one of his U.S. senators. Someone in the senator's office will read it and make sure the writer gets a response, but the letter is one of thousands dealt with, and the writer may be just one of millions of the senator's constituents. Perhaps this citizen gets smarter. Perhaps the citizen joins a group that stands for some of the same things the citizen stands for, a group such as the National Rifle Association or the American Civil Liberties Union. Through either of these groups or dozens of others, including Common Cause, citizens of like mind can come together in harmonious chorus and get attention. The time-honored tactic is of immeasurable democratic value. These associations can research, analyze, annoy, coax - and empower, giving the individual more political heft. The right of these groups to exist and speak up and get in the face of those who hold office would never be tolerated in a dictatorial regime, but in our land of liberty, the right has mostly been taken as inviolable. I said "mostly." The attitude of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law toward this right can be summed up as chuckle, chuckle, wink, wink, nudge, nudge. According to the law - whose enactment is regarded by Common Cause as a great victory for the American citizenry - these groups cannot sponsor TV or radio ads that mention a candidate's name when a primary is no more than 30 days away or a general election is no more than 60 days away. Whatever that is, it's not free speech. The McCain-Feingold law is like that throughout - a way of shutting people up through all sorts of pretenses, and Common Cause is not through yet. It also supports tight regulation of the growth of companies that bring you the news, an assault on freedom of the press. The justifying thesis is that a very few corporations could come to control what you learn about issues. It has apparently escaped the group's attention that we live in an age in which high-tech has given us more easily accessible outlets of information and views on public issues than has ever existed in history. I don't doubt that Common Cause has benefited America since it was created in the 1970s or that its members and officers are nobly intentioned. I think they are also hopelessly innocent on some issues, ideologically incapable of grasping some relatively easy concepts and so fixated on the question of money's corrupting influence on politics that they fail to see things whole. Someone needs to speak up, and since Common Cause hasn't managed to quell my voice yet, I just have.