And this was no "turnabout." Romney was and is appropriately concerned about the influence of money on politics, which is why he is for more transparency, accountability and disclosure, all of which McCain-Feingold has undermined by driving money to "secret corners." Regarding spending limits and public funding, which he previously supported, they restrict candidates, not citizens groups which he criticized McCain-Feingold for, and they proved to be such a failure in Massachusetts that he supported their repeal as Governor.

Regarding abolishing PACs, the big "turnabout" is not by Romney, who was concerned enough about PAC contributions that he didn't take any in 1994, but by the campaign finance reform lobby. The center piece of the original McCain-Feingold bill, introduced in the early 1990s, was abolishing PACs. This followed a relentless campaign by the campaign finance reform lobby, including Public Citizen, Common Cause and The New York Times, which published breathless exposes demonizing PAC contributions for their influence on legislators. Incumbent politicians were receiving about 80% of PAC contributions, and, in 1997, the PAC ban was dropped, as the result of opposition mainly from House Democrats and Senate Republicans. "Back-scratching" by the Washington political class seems like an apt, if modest, description of this.

Now, however, under the new McCain-Feingold, PACs are just a way for "citizens to play by the same rules as candidates." Not only are PACs not prohibited, they are now the required vehicle for everything a group wants to do to participate in our democracy – mention the name of a candidate, tell fellow citizens about what a politician is doing to us or for us in office, lobby him or her about an upcoming vote in Congress – all must be done through a PAC.

Nor has McCain-Feingold improved public cynicism about politics. Since its adoption in 2002 through 2004, almost 50% more Americans believe that people don't have a say in what the government does and 17% more Americans think that quite a few governmental officials are corrupt.

Finally, the Post justifies the "free speech blackout period" as stopping "sham issue advertising" – "the creation of corporate America and labor unions trying to get around the law that prohibits them from making political contributions." The news media exception belies this claim. The news media in America is owned almost entirely by six multinational corporate conglomerates, which earned total revenues in 2005 of 281 billion dollars. They can mention the names of federal candidates 24/7/365 and many in the media want to influence federal elections with this massive corporate spending.

Senator McCain recently explained, in filings in the U.S. Supreme Court, that any broadcast ads were sham efforts to influence federal elections, if they "took a critical stance regarding a candidate's position on an issue" and "referred to the candidate by name," during the blackout periods, and could be banned. It would come as a surprise to most Americans that incumbent politician have the power under our Constitution to prohibit people from criticizing them, but this is just what McCain-Feingold is intended to do. Repeal of this "deeply-flawed measure," therefore, is not "wrongheaded," but a welcome call from an aspiring Presidential candidate.