April 21

Good to know that Charles Krauthammer used to believe that disclosure of mega-campaign contributions was necessary [“The zealots win again,” op-ed, April 18]. That way you’d know who was advocating which course of action and who was trashing which political opponent.

But no more, Mr. Krauthammer told us. Why? Well, the people being trashed by the big donor can disagree and then retaliate. They not only can point out who was advocating what but also tell you something about that individual. Mr. Krauthammer called that “attacking,” which evidently is okay for the goose but not the gander.

Frank Brodersen, Fredericksburg

Charles Krauthammer’s argument that full disclosure of campaign contributions has been abused in contravention of constitutional principles of privacy and free association was well taken. But his argument missed the more significant injustice.

Transparency has resulted in a small number of adverse consequences, but the adverse consequences resulting from the unfettered amounts of political contributions by the oligarchs in this country have been devastating, and no amount of transparency can limit these effects. It will take a constitutional amendment limiting speech in the form of monetary contributions to political campaigns and elected officials to reestablish the principle of one man one vote.

Paul Chassy, Lakewood Ranch, Fla.