Anonymous campaign donations

KNick wrote:In effect, one man did change the outcome of the race for the presidency, even though he wasn't a candidate. Without his contributions, Johnson might have continued to run, with who knows what outcome. If an individual is that passionate about a cause, he should run for office himself. If he is willing to spend his own money on his own campaign to support his own ideals, I don't care how much he spends. But when I vote for someone, I want to know that my views are being respected, not the views of a single individual I have no idea about. As long as contributions remain anonymous, the idea of that possibility is always there. If the individual is afraid of the consequences to his business, then maybe he should rethink his position.

But that you would use your own money and run yourself, presumes that you would want to be president! Frankly, I'm not sure any sane man would be. However, concerning the threat to democracy of having one or two puppet masters remember the candidate still has to win. With our modern "investigative reporting" I think it would be very difficult to run and campaigning and not let your "REAL" agenda be known. It also ignores the concept that you might truly believe that one man, a man you admire greatly would be a great president and you wish to support him. Why in a free society can't you use your money the way you wish to support who you wish to the extent you wish without having to tell a nosy soul about it?

Of course, all of this presupposes that the man so admired that you have supported, thst you are prepared to spend billions upon, is not a man of character. What's more that the American public who seems to be remarkably insightful don't recognize that fact.

If I don't know who is supporting a candidate, how do I know that supporter is a reputable individual? Is he supporting the candidate for ideological reasons or is he doing it for monetary advantage? Is he supporting only one candidate or is he backing both of them? Are his interests good for the majority of the candidate's constituents or are they good only for a limited number of people? Will the candidate represent all the people who elected him or will he represent only his money bag? Until all of these questions can be answered openly and truthfully, with full disclosure of funding sources, I see no reason to allow anonymous donations. I also see no reason for there not to be an absolute cap on the amount any one individual may contribute. And for this purpose, a corporation or company should count as an individual. Make the cap $5,000 or $10,000, but make it an absolute limit for a single contributor.