of corruption on the part of the Times and Post, which are exquisitely sensitive about (other people's) appearances, is compounded by this fact: The media, which comprise the only intense constituency for campaign finance reform, advocate expanded government regulation of all political advocacy (BEG ITAL)except that done by the media. Many reformers' ostensible concern about the appearance of corruption is just for appearances. The politicians' real concern is to silence their critics. Recently John McCain gave the game away. He was discussing the bill's provision that puts severe--for many groups, insuperable--impediments on any group wanting to run a broadcast ad that so much as refers to a candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. He said: ``What we're trying to do is stop"--note that word--``organizations like the so-called Club for Growth that came into Arizona in a primary, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in attack ads. We had no idea who they were, where their money came from." McCain's attack was recklessly untruthful. He knows perfectly well what the club is--a mostly Republican group formed to support fiscal conservatives. The only ad the club ran--a radio ad--contained not a word of attack: It was an entirely positive endorsement of a candidate's views, and did not mention or even refer to anyone else. All contributions to the club over $200 are disclosed. But on one matter McCain, who wishes he could criminalize negative ads, was candid. He--like the Times and Post--is trying to stop others from enjoying rights they now enjoy.