I get the instinct behind caps—who wants to see billionaires buying elections? Nobody. That's common ground. But here's where I see the system working differently than you might expect. If we cap donations to candidates directly, that money doesn't disappear. It finds less transparent channels—super PACs, dark money groups, shadowy nonprofits. I'd rather have contributions out in the open, attached to a candidate who's accountable for them, than forced into the shadows where nobody knows who's funding what. There's also a feedback loop with incumbents. Strict caps make it harder for challengers to raise early money. Name recognition and the bully pulpit already give sitting politicians a huge advantage. Cutting off donation streams just locks in the status quo even harder. And honestly, capping donations disconnects ordinary people from the process. That small donation to a candidate you believe in feels like a stake in the system. It's not just about the rich. It's about not pretending that limiting one input will fix a system with so many other complex parts.

[No submission - Time expired]