Romney did not change his position on McCain-Feingold.

Reasons to agree

1. In the past Romney advocated campaign finance reform, but he never said he liked McCain's version. Mccain-fiengold has problems, even for people who want transparency in government finance. Mccain-fiengold has problems, even for people who want less money in government.
2. Romney has always supported transparency, accountability and disclosure, all of which McCain-Feingold undermines. Regarding previous support for spending limits and public funding, these restrict candidates, not citizens groups, and proved such a failure in Massachusetts that Mr. Romney supported their repeal as governor.
3. Regarding abolishing political action committees, the big turnabout was not by Mr. Romney but by the campaign finance reform lobby. Under McCain-Feingold, PACs are not prohibited but are the required vehicle for citizens to play by the same rules as candidates.
4. Advocating repeal of this "deeply flawed measure," as Mr. Romney described it, is not "wrongheaded" but a welcome call from a presidential candidate. JAMES BOPP JR.

Reasons to disagree

Articles that agree

1. Free Speech and McCain-Feingold, JAMES BOPP JR., Terre Haute, Ind. Wednesday, June 6, 2007

Articles that disagree

1. The May 27 Washington Post editorial "Campaign Finance Flip". The May 27 editorial "Campaign Finance Flip" criticized Mitt Romney for calling for the repeal of the McCain-Feingold law.

Terre Haute, Ind.

The writer, general counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech, is an adviser to the Romney campaign.

·

The editorial "Campaign Finance Flip" asserted that the McCain-Feingold law has not "squelched speech by some nonprofit groups close to Election Day" because "such groups are affected only if they accept corporate or union money; they remain free to run ads as long as they don't mention a candidate for federal office by name."

In fact, government regulations do not allow nonprofit groups to cleanse their accounts of previous minor corporate or labor donations -- which makes censorship permanent. These same regulations also bar such speech by incorporated nonprofits unless they were organized under one obscure paragraph in the tax code and avoid offering member discounts or even selling calendars or T-shirts.

How can speech be free when the government censors most citizen groups from mentioning the name of a member of Congress in a TV ad when a bill is coming up for a vote during a prohibited time? How would Post editors feel if Congress passed a law banning the paper from writing such editorials during the same time frame?

DAVID KEATING

Executive Director

Club for Growth

Washington