Regulation exists for a reason: contribution limits and disclosure only function when the source and amount of a donation are verifiable. Unregulated crypto is pseudonymous and trivially routed through mixers or foreign wallets. Premise one: campaign finance law depends on traceability. Premise two: anonymous crypto defeats traceability. Therefore: unregulated crypto donations neuter the limits that cash donations already obey. The practical consequence is concrete. A banned foreign donor or an over-the-cap donor can send crypto and nobody can prove it. Regulating crypto like cash just means applying the same disclosure burden to the same money.

I'll grant the blockchain creates a permanent record. But a record of wallet addresses is not traceability in the legal sense. Campaign finance law requires knowing who gave, not just that some address did. So the email analogy breaks: email isn't money, crypto is. And your own mixer point concedes the ledger alone fails. Regulating crypto like cash just means the same identity and disclosure burden cash already carries. That's not a fax rule; it's applying the existing rule to the same economic act. Small donors face the same paperwork either way.

Fair enough that a blockchain leaves a receipt and cash does not. But a receipt of an address isn't a receipt of a person, and campaign law cares about the person. Cash rules already solve this by putting the identity burden at the entry point: banks, treasurers, reporting thresholds. Regulating crypto like cash means the same thing, not a fax rule. Your tailored disclosure is just that, applied to crypto. Without it, a foreign donor's wallet stays a wallet. So yes, regulate the entry point, but call it what it is: cash-equivalent rules.