Two brief followups to "Already donated the limit"
First, I’d like to thank everyone for keeping the comments civil and constructive.
Second, I’d like to respond to Philll’s comment, “You sure do pick the strangest issues to make non-negotiable.”
I picked this because it struck me that the rules in question were being accepted and treated in the various discussions as fixed and unchanging, and no one was commenting that a primary architect of the laws was running.
Also, if you want to avoid bribes, either reduce the demand by reducing the scope and power of the government or of politicians. As long as the government is powerful, people will invest in getting what they want. Some fraction of this will go to rules avoidance, and some fraction to influence. I’d prefer that the rules avoidance be minimized, and I think transparency is the most promising approach there.