Clinton would know how many New Hampshire cocktail parties a particular supporter threw on his behalf. Donating your time to fundraising might still get you an ambassadorship. Mandating anonymous donations would undoubtedly lead some donors to directly purchase television ads supporting a candidate. Our constitution does not permit limiting individuals' ability to speak directly. Direct speech, uncoordinated with candidate campaigns, would therefore allow rich individuals to continue to signal their willingness to spend money on behalf of particular candidates.
Current law limits the ability of corporations and labor unions to engage in direct speech.
And few individuals have sufficient resources to purchase effective broadcast campaigns. Undoubtedly candidates would find ways to identify some donors. But when you make something more costly, you are likely to produce less of it. In the end, we predict that mandating donor anonymity would substantially reduce the number of six-figure donations. Cynics will argue that any reform worth doing has no chance of passing.