Submitted by John F., Sep 3, 2007 13:38

Richard Meade wrote: "Scrap all campaign finance laws except one that would require full disclosure of all sources of campaign funds." I'm troubled by full disclosure. If I can look on the Internet and see to whom my neighbors donated money, in effect I'm seeing their ballot. It seems unfair that a person who speaks up by donating money is stripped of his anonymity in the voting booth. The only way, then, to maintain privacy is to NOT donate money, i.e., not participate. What's the solution? Perhaps all votes should be a matter of public record, as in the days of New England town meetings (one could look around to see who was raising his hand in favor of a proposition). Or perhaps we should heed Mr. Meade's words ("If a candidate cannot attract support with his or her ideas, no amount of money will suffice to purchase the office.") and allow anonymous donations. That would be my preference. I certainly find it troubling that the defenders of "privacy rights" turn a blind eye to the enormously intrusive nature of public disclosure of donations. P.S.: It also seems to me that if we continue with the current system, aggregated donations should be revealed as well. Specifically, if a union or some other group gives money to a candidate, then the union should have to reveal the names and addresses of each dues payer and the amount he or she gave. I suspect a lot of people would be surprised, at the end of the day, that they had donated money to a candidate they opposed!

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.