Trevor Potter has written this Washington Post oped. A snippet:

Still, skeptics say: The legislation was supposed to put an end to corrupt money in politics, yet here we have a series of scandals unfolding on Capitol Hill like implausible B-movie scripts.
In response, I’d point out that McCain-Feingold — or the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), as the law is formally known — didn’t seek to remove money from politics. After all, we have no public funding for House and Senate candidates, and the presidential funding system is broken. Candidates and parties still need money to reach voters. The limited goal of the legislation was to remove the obvious corruption of six-figure individual contributions, and corporate and labor donations (increasingly solicited by elected federal officials) to national committee coffers. Sponsors argued that focusing on small individual contributions would force the parties back to the grass roots and away from White House soft-money ‘coffees.’ And the law has been an undisputed success in combating the corruption of huge soft-money contributions and an apparent success in re-energizing grass-roots supporters.

Potter, from the Campaign Legal Center, is not the only one from his organization to publish an oped this week. See Campaign Finance Loophole Makes Reform Possible in the San Jose Mercury News by Paul Ryan (on candidate controlled ballot measure committees) and Watch Proposed Earmark Reforms Very Carefully in Roll Call by Meredith McGehee.
Bob Bauer responds to Trevor’s editorial here.