Look, I get the appeal of unlimited contributions. The idea that people should be free to support whoever they want however much they want sounds democratic on the surface. But here's the problem — that freedom is only real for the wealthy. When you let people pour millions into campaigns, you're essentially letting a tiny fraction of the population drown out everyone else's voice. I'm not saying ban all contributions. I'm saying set a reasonable cap so that a teacher in Ohio has the same practical ability to support a candidate as a billionaire in New York. Right now, that's not even close to true. Money buys access, and access buys influence. A $50,000 check gets you a phone call. A $20 contribution gets you a form letter. Limits don't crush free speech — they balance it. They make sure elections aren't just auctions.

I hear what you're saying about disclosure, but let's be real — transparency alone doesn't fix power imbalances. We already know who the big donors are. The problem is they still get the access and influence their money buys, regardless of whether their name is public. You mention small-dollar donations growing. That's great. But why not protect that trend with limits? Right now, a handful of billionaires can still write checks that dwarf thousands of grassroots contributions combined. That's not a level playing field. And about super PACs — sure, some money will always find a way around the rules. But that's not an argument against limits. That's an argument for closing loopholes. We don't say "well, people still speed" and then remove all speed limits. We enforce the limits better. Limits don't silence anyone. They just make sure one voice can't shout down the rest.

You keep pointing to your city council candidate as proof that limits don't work, but I'd argue the opposite. If there were no limits, that incumbent would've had even more of a financial stranglehold. The problem wasn't the cap — it was that the cap was too high for a challenger to compete, or the old money networks just found other ways in. And I get that teachers can pool their money. That's great. But let's compare a hundred teachers raising $2,000 total to one donor writing a $200,000 check. Those aren't the same thing, and pretending they are is wishful thinking. You say super PACs will always find a way. That's true, but it's a reason to close the loopholes, not abandon the whole idea. We don't give up on campaign finance reform just because it's hard. We make it harder for big money to hide, and we start with direct contribution limits.