If you were Black, and this were Selma, then the names of financial backers and lists of participants would be something that one would hold close to the vest then you, Kari, might have a far different view about transparency. Presume a starting position that one can keep such things private -- what would it take to pry such information from the folks left out? For some folks the price of accepting tax deductible contributions is more than enough. For some folks -- folks outside -- the price to achieve public transparency (to broadcast to others information about one's private matters of public importance) is no price at all as it is not for sale. For others -- folks inside -- who have no knowledge of history other than their limited life experience, will think as did the folks in power in Selma, that demanding transparency is a good thing from their position of power, so much so that they would surely throw money at anyone just to assure that the insiders know from where the outsiders get their support.

Why pay police to investigate, or rough up, the rabble rousers when you can pay folks to march on city hall instead? This question makes no sense at all. Unless one dismisses history and presumes that the insiders are beyond question non-evil and the rabble rousers are instead, supporters of the status quo. In Selma, it might include paying the KKK to march on city hall.

Personally, I would strip the tax deductibility thing for all manner of non-profit's that receive largess from corporations and rich folks, as they can hardly claim with a straight face to be non-political.

If someone, or an unincorporated association, wishes to NOT induce donations by forming an entity that can receive tax deductible donations then more power to them. (Same thing for religious organizations, BTW.) If you, Kari, get public payment from Sten which is sufficient for you to host one dedicated server for two full years, even if Sten's traffic uses a mere 1 percent (and I am being generous here) of the capacity then I'd like to treat you and your organization in the very same manner as the AG treats ANY NON-PROFIT; with a conditional consent to go on a phishing expedition into ALL your transactions to find any SINGLE instance of an expenditure that is not in conformity with the stated public purpose associated with the privileged incorporation (or here I could find authority as an insider in your tacit approval as evidenced merely by your receipt of public money). Shall I demand to know whether the web server that you lease, like Ms. Boyles lease, extends beyond the campaign period. Shall I demand to know whether the Sten-server's capacity is utilized (commingled) with delivery of traffic for other stuff (for-profit or not-for-profit, it don't matter to me) as if Ms. Boyles long term leased space were used instead to accommodate mattresses for the homeless, but now not-homeless.

If I were an Inny rather than an Outy there really is no limit to what my fertile mind could dream up as a means to confound my Outies. Here is the very first reform suggestion:

--No money allowed for any incumbent. (That should be a deal-killer right there.)
--All "ultimate" recipient's of any money traceable to publicly paid campaign expenditures consent to official phishing expeditions into their entire private affairs just as if they were a non-profit. (That should be a deal killer right there too; tainted money and thus tainted campaign.)
--No money for present or former public employees, or for present or former staffers of any "official" non-profit entity for purposes of taxation. (Or other words designed to identify Innies in broader terms, like with corporate giveaways of free burgers and such to all but employees and their families.)

Before you get all idiotic in your support for government -- pretend that the KKK ran this town (or your own selection of the embodiment of evil) and then ask what you as an outsider would want to authorize them to do TO YOU.

Kari, is your price to give up YOUR personal individual right to tell the government (the fleeting Inny's) to F--- OFF a mere 6 grand of public money? If so, I'd ask you to reconsider.

There is no "sophistication" at all to the notion of someone believing that "I am not evil and thus nothing I do can be construed as evil." It is transparent narrow-mindedness, no more no less.

Go judge for yourself at "On beyond Vladimir"

UPDATE: Afternoon essay:

The public owns and pays for upkeep of Pioneer Courthouse Square (PCS). Should that financial sponsorship be termed a privilege that accords the sponsor the right to place conditions on access to do anything other than sit and eat lunch? Could the lobby law that is applicable to appearing before the city council (or otherwise lobby city officials) be applied for appearing at PCS? Could the limits on who may obtain lobbying dollars (VOE money to lobby the public) also be applied to entry to PCS, to mingle with the lunch-only crowd?

Imagine that in order to schmooze in this traditional public forum one must first commit to run for office and then leave their first amendment rights at the door, in favor of contractual consent to acceptance that those rights are mere privileges for which a prior grant of approval is mandatory at the discretion of the sitting government.

The presumption of the right to speak, not a privilege, rests equally with anyone that can enter PCS and thereafter does not engage in violence. The scope of government authority to interfere with this right is limited to instances where it can fit within the narrow description of "time place and manner" restrictions. Thus ANYONE that can enter PCS to schmooze, by right, is entitled to obtain VOE money to aid them in schmoozing. This would be an expensive proposition. We could take incremental steps to limit the spending of publicly delivered schmooze money; such as giving it only to those folks that actually enter the PCS to schmooze or to folks that place their names on the ballot.

Or, we could take one giant hack at the right and call it a privilege instead, at the outset, and set up a 1000 signature thing and a five dollar per person thing. The preceding sentence is the only sort of reasoning or explanation left at the end of the day. Someone must, as a condition of entry into PCS to schmooze with the lunch-only crowd, must prove they have the backing as evidenced by 1000 signatures.

The power of the Auditor to keep a name off the ballot is limited to instances where the candidate's filing is spurious. Imagine a uniform application of a proof of lack of spuriousness as that someone must obtain 1000 signatures and five dollars from each. That is, every candidate that appears on the ballot would already have met the criteria to obtain public VOE money, by not being spurious candidates. The sole issue left to obtaining the public money is conversion of the right to communicate nonviolently, and without any transparency as to financial backing, to that of a privilege accompanying payment (like calling a card game bluffer) so that the public can get a look at your financial backers. The leap from selling info on one's own financial backers (via tax deductibility of donations) to one of disclaiming any private financial backing is so far removed from any past reasonable analytical regimes that it defies logic. It is in a world unto itself, where speech is a privilege not a right; and that's just not right. The desire of the government, or any authority, to be viewed as inherently non-evil is not new, really, but the first amendment was new and considered essential, for a reason; a reason that is lost on those folks in power that still refuse to view themselves as capable of evil, which is not new at all, and an evil unto itself to which the first amendment is drafted to address.