This kind of thing scares me. I understand that the website itself is okay; it's just part of openness in government. This is already public information. Makin

This kind of thing scares me. I understand that the website itself is okay; it's just part of openness in government. This is already public information. Making public info available conveniently is a Good Thing. The problem is with the information itself: there is no context. I'm all for "standing up and being counted", whether by voting, writing an article, or making a contribution. But votes are secret, and articles can give context and explanation, which can be cited later, if ones actions are questioned. Contributions, on the other hand, are public, but carry no explanations with them. Typically, when dealing with political candidates, both choices are bad (at least a little). We do what we can, choosing the lesser of two evils. But to be on record as making some choice -- necessarily a choice with some negatives to it -- and without any opportunity to explain oneself? Sounds risky. And it can be very risky. I've seen a couple of situations recently, where a list of contributors was treated as an "enemies list" by someone who opposed whatever they were contributing to. People attempt to shut down businesses, etc. And the victims really have no recourse, no forum in which to explain themselves. I conclude, therefore, that, in the U.S., or anywhere else with similar laws, making political contributions is a bad idea. My current rule is not to do it. Not ever. And I would advise others to consider acting likewise, as long as our current laws are in place.