"His opinion is no longer private. Once you vote with your dollars you have publicly acknowledged your opinion." Here is the thing, SCotUS has ruled that the 1s

"His opinion is no longer private. Once you vote with your dollars you have publicly acknowledged your opinion." Here is the thing, SCotUS has ruled that the 1st amendment protects anonymous political speech precisely because a lack of anonymity can lead to the "economic or official retaliation" against those with differing political views and has also ruled that money, in the context of politics, is speech. So is there a constitutional imperative to protect the anonymity of political speech when that speech comes in monetary form? I personally believe that we are better off being able to see how our leaders have financed their campaigns, but what we have hear is prima facie evidence that not protecting speech when it is in monetary forms leads to the exact sort retaliation that the Supreme Court used in the justification of McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission. I emphatically don't agree with his views, but the threat to everyone's right to free political speech and the potential threat to transparency of campaign finances are not to be taken lightly.