Paul Sherman of the Institute for Justice raises an interesting set of questions:
When discussing the Buckley and Brown holdings on disclosure, I think it's important to keep in mind that both decisions were written years before the Internet made campaign-finance data easily available to anyone with an idle curiosity in your political activity. In 1976 the average donor probably didn't have much to fear from having their contributions disclosed, because the cost of accessing that data was relatively high. But when that data can be accessed with just a few keystrokes, methods of retaliation that are already virtually impossible to detect or prove suddenly become very low cost. How can I demonstrate to a court, for example, that I was denied a job because I made a contribution to a disfavored candidate or ballot initiative? With employers routinely performing Google searches of job applicants, is it unreasonable to think this happens with some frequency?
I don't know the answers to these questions, or to the broader question of what should happen to campaign finance law in light of these questions. But I do think these are much worth considering.
For more from the Institute for Justice on this, see Disclosure Costs: Unintended Consequences of Campaign Finance Reform, and Campaign Finance Red Tape: Strangling Free Speech and Political Debate.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Proposition 8 Donor Maps,
- Campaign Contribution Disclosure and Technological Change:
- Disclosure of Contributors to Ballot Measures:
- Boycott Threats Lead to Resignation of Theater Artistic Director Who Contributed to Anti-Same-Sex-Marriage Initiative:
This has increased the marginal cost of political participation.
given the vast amount information on anyone on the internet, the only way to remedy this would be to ban employers from using google (or any other search engine) or to end at-will employment.
I was going to contribute to the McCain campaign until I realized that he published all his donors including those under $200. I am a grad student in the humanities going on the job market in the next couple years. To me being found out as not a liberal or Democrat would negatively affect my job search and I decided not to take that risk. Wish this weren't so but while I kind of fear for unknown search committees, I am absolutely concerned that being found out would negatively impact the letters of recommendation from my department. My cohort is very competitive and with profs writing recommendations for various students to the same positions, I can't risk even a slightly less favorable recommendation.
Persons wishing to make a contribution to a particular person, party or cause would just deposit their contribution into the system with instructions as to how the funds are to be distributed among candidates. After this is done, the system would destroy all records of the contributor's transaction. Candidates, parties, and causes would be able to withdraw funds from their accounts, but have no idea of who might have provided them.
The system would require methods to prevent parties and candidates calculating what individuals contributed to what accounts. Such methods might include randomly creating time intervals between the time of a donation and the time it is credited to various campaign accounts, spreading out the distribution of a large contribution to one canpaign account, etc. But all this is all well within the means of modern technology. Such a system would also require some fairly sophisticated safeguards to ensure that confidentiality is maintained and funds are distributed according to contributors wishes. But again I'm sure that such safeguards could be devised.
Does anyone know whether such a scheme has ever been suggested and, if so, why it was rejected? I'm honestly curious.
Oren: I think you are right in a strictly logical fashion but as a practical matter, anyone deciding to express political opinions in private may well take into account their audience first. Donating to a political campaign is not quite the same thing. I don't see why citizens shouldn't have the right to facilitate someone else's political speech in their behalf without it becoming universally available knowledge that they have done so. What's the harm? It's not like such small contributions have any real potential to induce corruption anyway.
Further more, the existence of publicly-announced boycotts/retaliations just raises the suspicion that their are unannounced ones going on and creates a climate where people feel that economic retaliation is an inherentpart of the political process.
The net result of these factors is to discourage political participation except by the more fanatical members of society who are willing to bear the costs. Such a tendency is not healthy for a democracy, particularly not a democracy like ours where getting people to pay attention to important issues is already difficult.
There probably is not a good legislative remedy for this problem. Just like there is not a good legslative remedy for people who wear T-shirts that make crude reference to Sarah Palin. But we can individually dissaprove of these actions and maybe make people reconsider the wisdom of advocating economic retaliation.
Oren: I think your free speech argument misses the point. yes we have free speech but we also have a secret ballot. The latter is value we are seeking to protect.
While I think Andie's concerns are overblown, there are times when the exercise of First Amendment rights needs to be protected from retaliation by public officials (NAACP v. Alabama). I'd really hate to see government agencies using Google to secretly blackball job applicants.
Home of the brave, indeed.
3,000,000 signed the petition. One representative had access to the data of the people that signed it. The Electoral council allowed him to photocopy all it. he made a cdrom version that was sent to every government agency and company. The cd was available with street vendors too.many people some critics say in the thousand were fired from their jobs.Or were denied jobs not only in the executive but also in the independent judiciary and Public Minister .People was denied passports, personal identification card( In Venezuela without it you are a non entity, you can be jailed or deported( if you look like a foreigner) for not having it), credits.
It is called the Tascon file, last name of the MP.
Even americans and european companies fired people because they signed. They were threatened with the loss of contract if they failed to fire the signers.My sister was a university professor , she arranged a trip to the state oil company with her students. half of them were denied access because they had signed.
The electoral Council rejected 1,000,000 signatures and ordered a resign. The fgovernmente lifted the "sanctions" to the people thah denounced that their signature was forged or denied signing the first time.
Of course there is! Simply repeal the campaign-finance laws that already abridge the right to anonymous free speech.
Tell that to "Publius", "Cato", and "Federal Farmer".
Privately, say what you want and I assume your friend won't go to the press.
Want to influence a public election, you ought to welcome public scrutiny.
It's funny, because I never thought I had a right to anonymous public speech in any meaningful way.
If you are so cowardly that you won't venture you opinion on a public matter (except in front of friends) then I would question the strength of your convictions.
I own up to all my political opinions and donations, even in cases where I erred (in the sense of later changing my mind).
Today's political contributors want anonymity, in a nation founded because some fifty six people, well aware of likely retaliation, signed this statement and circulated it publicly:
One thing to say about it is it is one more example of why originalism is a really dumb constitutional theory-- the balance of interests can change due to technology, but the originalist is still only concerned with what was true in the distant past.
That wasn't the logic behind the use of pseudonyms at that time. In fact, the concern was exactly the opposite -- that readers would be influenced by the identity of the author rather than by the quality of the argument.
Before the Revolution, when English seditious libel laws were in force and treason was in contemplation, there were, of course, good reasons for anonymity.
So I take it you would tell that to the aforementioned gentlemen? Wow! Well, I guess there's no questioning the strength of your convictions, anyway...
"If you are so cowardly that you won't venture you opinion on a public matter (except in front of friends) then I would question the strength of your convictions."
Strange, then, that you would not use your last name for your posts here. What could you possibly be afraid of? Hm?
Yes, I will grant that exception. Now that you can't be held to any legal account, that logic is no longer valid.
I was unaware of McIntyre, so thanks for the pointer.
David, it's a matter of not showing up on Google searches, which is a personal preference. While I don't believe in a legal right to remain anonymous, there's nothing wrong with people posting online and divulging as much or as little personal information as they please.
Of course, you are free to judge my posts by whatever silly criteria you like.
BBB
Ultimately, economic retaliation is a form of thuggery. It is not as bad as actual violence (though it can incite violence), but it certainly does not seem to be a sound basis for democracy. Do we really want our most important political decisions to be decided (or even influenced) on the basis of which side has a greater ability to inflict economic pain on the other side?
Again, this is not a matter of rights. People certainly have the right to behave in asinine ways that degrade our democratic process. But should we encourage that or should we look to ways to limit that (perhaps by allowing for greater confidentiality with respect to political contributions). And certainly, we can condemn those who would use economic retaliation to intimidate those with oposing viewpoints.
It is interesting that Oren is not able to respond to the argument that he certainly appreciates his anonymity on this board. Nor is he able to respond to my argument that protection from retaliation is precisely the reason we have a secret ballot. I think that some posters may not be as courageous as they demmand their fellow citizens to be.
"Of course, you are free to judge my posts by whatever silly criteria you like."
Clearly the criterion to which you refer is not one I apply, or I would have to discount 90% of the people posting here, which would be, as you note, silly. It does, however, appear to be the one you suggest should be applied to others, hence my puzzlement.
Not the singular of data.
"the originalist is still only concerned with what was true in the distant past"
Only? I find that difficult to credit. In what sense, in the grand scheme of things, is the Founding truly distant? Would that it were and that this Republic had survived a few millenia. Then we can get cocky.
Perhaps this is closer to your meaning:
"Some are so very studious of learning what was done by the ancients, that they know not how to live with the moderns."
- Billy Penn
Once again proof that there's nothing so crazy that it hasn't been suggested already somewhere. Last week, the Dutch privacy protection board suggested that employers googling prospective employees violated their privacy rights. As if we needed any more proof that they're idiots.
"Privately, say what you want and I assume your friend won't go to the press.
Want to influence a public election, you ought to welcome public scrutiny."
Without, I expect, intending this result, you just argued against private ballots, for voting is indeed an attempt to influence the outcome of an election. It is also clearly expressive, and nearly always anonymous.
You may think that the rationale for treating voting differently from speaking to influence others votes is abundantly clear, but there doesn't seem to be much rationale for it.
Basically. given the practical realities of voting, to allow anonymity while voting, but not while discussing the subject of that vote, is to allow people anonymity in an area with minimal practical effect, but to disallow it in an area that has the potential (depending on the dissemination and effectiveness of your communication) to have a much greater effect.
But none the less, last night there was a massive protest outside the restaurant and an ongoing boycott. The staff, which had nothing to do with one co-owner's private outside-of-work political speech, is being punished. The waiters, busboys, etc are all losing tips over this.
The goal, of course, is to intimidate business owners out of speaking their personal opinion.
If that's not thuggery, I don't know what is. It's probably legal, but it's still thuggery.
Either Oren has balls of brass or nothing to lose, it appears.
Maybe one is willing to accept the risk for important issues, but less willing for less important issues. By Oren's Law, too bad for you: you lose your chance for political speech out of cowardice.
And this differs from 'If you're not a criminal, you don't have to worry about this law'?
The problem is that, on the whole, only one side of the political spectrum engages in this type of thuggery. So they see no downside in that behavior. If this were a two-way street, then perhaps people would think twice about putting someone's livelihood in jeaopardy merely for a political disagreement.
Also, if you support protesting for one thing, you must support protesting all other ideas as well, or your some sort of moral relativist. Or moral absolutist. The point is, you're bad!
To some extent, you see that in the present thread as well. Some commenters are arguing that these kinds of boycotts for speach are "bad form", i.e. inappropriate in a country that values free and frank exchange of ideas. And then they are replied to as if they suggested making such things illegal.
This thread is not about whether certain behaviour should be illegal, but about whether it should be condemned as inappropriate.
P.S. Focusing only on the legal/illegal distinction is very dangerous to freedom, because it makes the lawmaker the ultimate and only arbiter of human behaviour. This leeds to increasingly detailed laws and regulations, because those are perceived as the only effective constraints on citizens. So instead of having a simple social norm about swearing on TV, we have an FCC regulation. Instead of trusting each other to act responsibly when it comes to campaign contributions (i.e. not try to get favours in return, and not agree to give any), we have increasingly detailed campaign finance legislation. The list goes on and on, and the underlying problem is one of increasing unwillingness to accept social norms of behaviour that are not law.
And what's wrong with non-violent coercion (besides blackmail that is)? If a company refuses to hire blacks should we still be forced to do business with them? If a individual commits a crime should we still be forced to associate with them? If my kid breaks curfew should I still be forced to give him an allowance? Heck, even giving $1000 dollars to Prop 8 was coercive- it created propaganda to try and influence votes. It's just wrong to conflate non-violent economic coercion with violent coercion.
Under the First Amendment, people have the freedom to walk around calling yes-on-8 supporters "bigots", and people have the freedom to walk around calling no-on-8 supportors "f-ggots", but I think that both would be in extremely poor taste and possibly a form of thuggery if done to intimidate or coerce.
Not everything that is legal is a good idea. See also Bruce Willis at the start of Die Hard: With a Vengeance.
I was disappointed to see Prop 8 pass. But the reaction from the opponents of Prop 8 has been even more disappointing. If it continues at this rate, it looks like the silent majority will choose between gay rights and freedom of speech for all. That is not good.
2. Why should (or is) a private employer refusing to hire someone based on political affiliation/contributions be illegal?
IJ as quoted by Eugene
I can't see what relevance IJ could imagine, to any truly liberal proceeding, of whether someone was denied a job on that basis. so what. you're not entitled to a job. of course of I feel the same way with regard to private employers and race, gender, etc. Just as I accept boycotts that operate as speech. The sense of speech as intimidation has to come from fear of indirect harm, e.g. losing business, but real fear for direct harm to life, liberty or property for actual coercion to exist.
My humble opinion, not making reference to the anti-trust standard.
Brian
PS adopted my latest nom de plume while ministering to the outbreak of Yoo Derangement Syndrome, the Marty Lederman goes Volokh threads on the conspiracy last April I believe. So it was a deliberate attempt not to hide my association with that reviled minority of those who didn't see the memo's as evidence of a hanging offense, literally or figuratively.
I'm ambivalent about the right to comment anonymously. Certainly where the threat to life, liberty or property exists it ought to be protected. Whether I think that extends right to anonymous speech extends to campaign contributions, closer call. But, as a practical matter, I have no problem with a different standard for voting than electioneering. The franchise deserves a different level of privacy. and should the lack of privacy in the electioneering realm limit the pool participating there to a smaller pool than those exercising the franchise, so what.
Brian
The same way one demonstrates that one lost a job because of race, gender or religion in employment cases today. You muster the evidence the best you can, and it is up to the jury to infer the state of mind of the person or persons who made the employment decision.
I have never assaulted the secret ballot, which is absolutely integral to the democratic process. I reread my comments, which have absolutely nothing in them that suggests this. If anything I wrote did suggest that, then consider it only evidence of my poor writing skills.
On the other hand, I believe that it is perfectly right and proper for society to express its disapproval for speech that it doesn't like through the moral opprobrium of its freely acting individual citizens. That is, in fact, the only response that I feel is appropriate when other engage in speech that we disapprove of. It's a good thing that citizens feel strongly enough about their convictions to boycott businesses that oppose them -- it's a sign of a healthy democracy in action.
As to anonymity on this board, any feeling that we might have of anonymity is a joke. The VCers can pull my IP and get my identity in a morning.
The government isn't compelling anything. If you don't want to make a political speech or donation, don't. If you do want to make a public statement with the intent of influencing others, then you have accepted a fortiori that the purpose of your speech is to be publicly available, that being a necessary predicate of influencing others.
Agreed. Civility would be nice, but it's hardly the government's job to enforce some sort of standards of discourse.
In today's world, admission to the marketplace of ideas has a steep cover charge - the price of TV ads [disclaimer 1]. It's not like in days of yore when anonymous leafleting was state of the art. Maybe you're living in the jim crow south and want the voice of a reformer to be heard - but not at the price of losing your job, having your house firebombed, etc.
It works both ways - as an employer, I'd would certainly look askance at someone who contributed to e.g. David Duke. I submit that the advantages of broad participation in the marketplace outweigh the disadvantages of anonymous contributions.
I am intrigued by the proposal to *only* allow anonymous contributions. I like the prospect of businessmen telling their congressman 'I gave $20K to your campaign' - and the congressman wouldn't know if it was true or not.
[disclaimer 1]I don't watch TV, and don't think TV ads are a good method of reasoned debate, but they are what shapes opinion in modern America.
You could just as well be a racist business owner wanting to support the KKK but wary of losing business to the boycotts -- boycotts that were a very successful tool in the hands of civil rights advocates. See, e.g. the 1965 AFL All Star Game.
This gets floated every once in a while. The proper answer is to say "Congressman -- I gave you $2^15" ($32k + change), which he can easily verify by decomposing his total balance into powers of 2.
Ok, then why is giving money to a candidate not private? Would you appreciate it if you had to disclose that a friend loaned you some money? Would the friend? So let's make it that ANY financial transaction at all, including me putting a dollar in your hand, subject to public disclosure.
Quite frankly, I think campaign finance reform is dead as a doornail and the democrats killed it this time. The obscene amounts of money collected and spent by the Obama campaign won't be a lopsided affair ever again, if the repubs have ANY common sense at all.
At any rate, my giving ANYONE money should be a private affair. It is MY money and where/how I use it is MY business alone....... as long as I am not breaking any laws doing so. If intrusive laws exist that get in our knickers, we should have them struck..... period! It is none of ANYONE's business who or what I donate to..... again, as long as the transaction is a legal one. Unless you are the person checking to ensure it was a legal transaction, you have zero business knowing anything about it or that it even occurred.
In the 1950s, White Citizens Councils got the names of black voters and then distributed them to area busineses. As a result, the voters lost their jobs and their houses; they could not buy groceries or gas. See, eg. http://www.crmvet.org/tim/timhis59.htm
Was that acceptable even though it was only economic and not violent (although much actual violence was employed as well)?
Federal litigation and, eventually, the Voting Rights Act put a stop to this, at least to a large extent.
If a restaurant were refusing to serve black people, I would not go there. If a restaurant was calling its gay patrons "f-ggots" then I also would not go there.
But there is a sharp distinction between the private political conduct of an employee and the restaurant itself. What the employees do on their own time outside of work is none of my business -- I would not refuse to patronize a restaurant because some of its employees decided to have gay sex on their own time outside of work, nor would I refuse to patronize a restaurant because some of its employees decided to oppose gay sex on their own time outside of work.
The staffers, waiters, busboys, and others who work at the restaurant had no way to know of the $100 contribution to the campaign, but they are now being punished for it. In fact, some of the waiters are themselves gay and have now been denied a living in tough economic times.
The First Amendment recognizes that vibrant political discourse is an important part of American democracy. And the First Amendment's prohibition on government coercion exists to make sure that people feel free and un-chilled to speak their opinion on controversial topics. From that vibrant discourse, eventually we'll find our way to a better form of government.
But private conduct can chill speech too. Here, members of one group want to silence the private political speech of another group by blacklisting and boycotting. Even if their ends migth be noble*, trying to silence opponents through intimidation and threats is not the right way to go about making poltical change in America. Everybody has the right to speak their mind about political issues like Prop 8, and should feel free to express their views without fear of coercion by the government or by vigilante action.
Democracy itself is hurt when private political speech outside of work becomes a basis on which to attack an entire business. We lose the vibrant debate that is crucial to democracy when people on either side of an issue are coerced into silence. That's not a price worth paying for any issue.
* I opposed 8, and hope the next ballot measure in 2010 fixes the situation.
And vice versa.
What we really need to do is shun posters named Oren because they confuse us. Even if they are on our side.
Political participation is a public good in a democracy, and one which has a higher priority than complete knowledge about campaign contributions. The latter goes only to an informed electorate. There is little informed electorate value in contributions by individuals save for mammoth contributions to candidates for office.
So this discussion and, in particular, the sharing of useful personal anecdotes, is informative and useful. Tnank you.
And this demonstrates why the conclusion of Buckley v. Valeo, that money is the equivalent of speech, is untenable, at least as we understand it. That ruling made little sense at the time, and it makes less now. What person would imagine that when they donate money in private, using their own private funds in a transaction that they would expect no one to know about short of them telling others themselves, would think that they are exercising "speech" in anyway? Is it not rational for a person who wishes to support a cause, but is prevented or uncomfortable with the idea of supporting it publicly and vocally, to make a contribution in the expectation that their contribution will not be known to others?
Not if you give it to an elected official, or a candidate for office. The public has a right to know that, so we can keep an eye on that politican and make sure your donation doesn't amount to a bribe.
On the other hand, I can't really come up with a good justification for mandatory disclosure on ballot propositions.
Sure - it removes some of the downside for advocates of all fringe opinions, good and bad. I think that's a feature, not a bug. In a democracy, you can't defeat the KKK by suppressing their message - only by convincing a majority of the population that they are wrong. Let all the wacky ideas get thrown in the mix, and trust the majority to sort out the right ones.
If this was 1800, most of us would be farmers. If we advocated an unpopular position, we might be shunned, but we wouldn't lose out job. In 2008, though, most of us work for an employer. When I hear that people are afraid to contribute to candidate A or cause B because they reasonably fear they will become unemployable, that doesn't sound like a democracy that is functioning well.
Can you explain the math in more detail? I tell my congressman 'I gave $256'. Even if his balance is $256, he doesn't know if that was one $200 and one $56 donations, or some other combination. If there was some clever technique to leak information about contributors, then randomly round the amounts up or down a few percent.
Actually, if you had bothered to read my comments at all, I was quite clear that this was not a question of rights, but what we think our democracy should look like. Attacking strawmen is easy but silly.
My position is that a democracy where people are afraid to speak up because they fear retaliation (economic or otherwise) is not long going to be a viable democracy. That is why we have a secret ballot. And that also provides a strong argument for greater confidentiality with regards to campaign contribution (balanced, of course, by concerns about corruption). Oren seems to feel that is good that people are so passionate that they want to engage in boycotts. But why is that good? Passionate people can involved in politics without resorting to boycotts. If their arguments are persuasive, why do they need to economically coerce people? If Proposition 8 was overturned because the proponents caved into economic coercion, would we feel that democracy was served? And, finally, it is indisputable that widespread economic coercion will cause some people to withdraw from political activity. How can that be a good thing?
As I said before, this is not about rights. There is probably no good legislative way to stop economic retaliation just like there is no good way to stop people from spreading lies or half-truths about political opponents. However, both of those things are destructive to democracy. A prudent person would choose not to exercise their rights in that manner and might choose to advocate against those that do.
The idea goes like this -- suppose the candidate can read his report daily. He tells his large donors to donate a different power of two each day. E.g. Monday, Bob donates 2^10 and Bill donates 2^11 while Joe donates 2^8. At the end of the day Monday, he reads his report and sees $3328 = $256 + $1024 + $2048, so he knows that Bob, Bill and Joe donated.
You are correct that you break this by having an intermediate that drips the money in randomly, keeping some of Monday's dollars for Tuesday or just skimming the money for himself.
The real way you would break the anonymous donation scheme is for the benefactor to present his cancelled check or credit card receipt showing the donation.
If the Democrats here have evidence of recent (within the past four yeares) right-wing and/or Republican retaliation against political particpation by Democrats, particularly by GOP public officials, now is the time to speak up.
A point to bear in mind here is that one side has guns and the other doesn't. Given the alternative, official protection of political participation by individuals is very much in the interest of the side which doesn't have the guns.
The difference is when you make a *choice*, there are consequences. Race and gender are not choices... hence the protected class.
I own a business of about 80 people, and I don't hire smokers, because their increased health-care costs and absenteeism hit my bottom line. I don't hire people with bad credit reports because it shows irresponsibility. Same with people who have bad driving records. I have no qualms at all firing someone for supporting political causes that are similarly detrimental to my bottom line. What's the difference? I also have no complain if a customer chooses to do business with someone else, because of my policies.... they are my *choices*.
This problem could be solved by allowing any donor a 1-day cooling-off period where they could get the money refunded, no questions asked. Proving to a bribee that you had made the bribe would then involve presenting your receipt and proving that you hadn't had it refunded.
Another partial solution would involve not having the name of the candidate show up on the receipt, so you could donate to one candidate and call in a favor on both, but that's less compelling because there are large contributers who would only reasonably contribute to one side.
-dk
How about drawing a line at, say, 20% of per capita GNP. Below that line (several thousand bucks, no?), contributions are anonymous. Above, they're not. So the little guy can chip in a few hundred bucks without worrying about retaliation, but if you're a big guy, or want to act like one, then you have to stand up and perhaps stand out.
I'm not all-in on this idea, but it seemed worth considering.
Of course, there would have to be some good accountability for the escrow agency.
"Consistent with Oren Kerr's Law, I see that those who supported the party which screamed bloody murder about Obama's failure to disclose the names of small donors are now adamant that political donations should be anonymous."
I fear I've run afoul of your law.
Oren,
"This gets floated every once in a while. The proper answer is to say "Congressman -- I gave you $2^15" ($32k + change), which he can easily verify by decomposing his total balance into powers of 2."
Unless you find a way to repeal the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, this doesn't work.
I don't understand the complaints about this. If the information was public record, and the media asked for it, then the state agencies had a duty to turn it over.
If you are a small business owner and you don't like the policies Obama is going to cram down your throat, be sure to lay off his supporters first, or don't hire them in the first place.
The officials dug through the records improperly (they are not allowed to just pull up a file because the guy is on the tee-vee) and disclosed private information that was not public (automobile records, etc...).
Right now the line (for federal Presidential campaigns) is $200. McCain disclosed the names anyway. Obama did not. Obama also apparently set up his web site to take money from anybody using any name just so long as the credit card was valid. If the owner complained they tried to get the owner to agree to make the contribution (possibly a lot of thsose cases involved children or other family members making contributions using their parents' credit cards or other
Now clearly the disclosure level in California for preopositions is too low.
By the way disclosure most of the time is pretty useless as a misdeeds preventative. It never affected Bill Clinton's prospects very much.
So any lower limit allows persons with intent to deceive to make their contributions just below the limit, and make multiple contributions.
The solution to make sure politicians aren't being bought is full sunshine: all contributions, regardless of size, need to be disclosed.