Picture a local bakery owner who wants to give $500 to a city council candidate who actually understands small business zoning. Under a strict cap, she can only give $100. But that doesn't stop a national union or a corporate super PAC from pouring millions into the same race through independent expenditures. So what did the cap actually accomplish? It just silenced the individual and handed more power to the organized machines that can work around it. That's the core problem. Strict caps don't reduce money in politics. They just shift it from real people to shadowy groups. And let's be honest, donating to a candidate you believe in is a form of political speech. Capping that speech is a direct limit on participation. If we're worried about corruption, disclosure is the answer. Publish every donation, in real time, and let voters judge. That's transparent and fair. Caps are just a feel-good measure that backfires.

[No submission - Time expired]