[5938] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Is there an anonymous contribution protocol?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Reusch)
Tue Oct 19 17:56:14 1999
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991019154828.007d9a00@mail.ewndsr1.nj.home.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 15:48:28 -0400
To: cryptography@c2.net
From: Reusch <reusch@home.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
A couple of months ago, someone (unfortunately, I don’t recall the name or date)
wrote to the New York Times, suggesting that all political contributions be made
anonymously.
Given the continuous contention that the issue of political contributions causes
in the US, I was intrigued by the idea and have thought about it, off-and-on,
since even though connected people snort derisively at the idea and I assume it
has the political viability of the Caesar cipher at the NSA. Nevertheless, I
wonder whether a suitable protocol has already been invented.
Typically, a contributor would like to be able to confirm his donative status with
a political party or candidate, as would the party or candidate for, their targeted
mailings and such. Thus, any anonymous political contribution protocol would involve
proofs of membership and share much with secure election protocols. However, these
are not sufficient.
It should be difficult for the recipient to discover the amount of the claimed
contribution. The contributor might say to the recipient, I will contribute
$100,000 to your campaign at exactly 2:03 PM USA PST. While a third party,
that anonymizes the transfer of funds, would be involved, immediate tracking
of the balance could reveal the identity of the contributor. Limited reporting
of the current balance or, using MixMaster-like techniques to obfuscate
fund transfers, may do for high traffic ($$$) recipients.
Further, it ought to be be difficult for a contributor to collect proofs of contribution
from other people that he has illicitly funded in the classical "Gore-Buddhist-Temple"
attack (http://www.realchange.org/gore.htm#buddhist) to later present to the recipient.
This seems hard and may justify a very low minimum contribution.
While, "I am not a lawyer", I am certain that there are labyrinthian free speech issues
involved in mandated anonymous political contributions. While the fact that we voted is
recorded in the US, the side that we voted for is concealed (I hope so, having made no
detailed examination of the internals of voting machines. Such is Trust.). Even though
anonymous voluntary free speech is protected here, it is a thick slice between
"I contributed" and "I contributed $100,000. Here is my receipt! Get the bedroom ready."
Michael
