Having my boss be able to tell how I contributed to a political campaign is not an abstract problem. It's been a big enough problem in the past that there were laws passed to try to prevent it (see for example, the Hatch act).

Mr Eich is the only example I mentioned. In just this one political cause (prop 8) he was one of many people who were bullied.

How about Scott Eckern? How about Jose Nunez?

And, for each example that has been made, how many people choose to remain silent? How does that get measured? Making high profile examples out of people is very cost effective and efficient. It demoralizes and defunds your opposition.

I find whole idea that it is somehow acceptable to enable the bullying of individuals by extremist groups to be deeply unsettling. Anonymous donations prevent this sort of abuse very simply and effectively.

If it's corruption you're after, then go after that. Either limit the power that the elected officials have (term limits, etc) or investigate them.

People with money and power will always find ways to buy certain politicians. If one way is blocked, another will open up. Just look at how many politicians have cushy K street jobs once they retire (provided they do their masters bidding while in office). No campaign donations to trace or disclose.

Am I the only one who's uncomfortable with the idea that political speech is kosher, but responding to political speech in a way which is "bullying" is not?

I feel like we should do more to separate the abusive harassment (which is clearly not okay) from other real-life consequences, maybe including losing friends or a job, that come with holding and furthering a political belief. The latter seems like it could plausibly be a feature of a well-functioning political discourse.

Why would you think that firing an employee over a political contribution they made or did not make would be in any way acceptable?

Well functioning political discourse is, above all, tolerant. A hallmark of non-functioning politics is the use of coercion.

How would you feel if you worked for one company, and they required you to fund a certain cause. Then, you get fed up with that, but you're now on the officially reported doner list for that cause (which your employer used to ensure compliance), and another employer says they won't hire you based on a simple web search of causes you've "supported" in the past?

> Why would you think that firing an employee over a political contribution they made or did not make would be in any way acceptable?

Why would you think making a political contribution is in any way acceptable? Because we live in a free society. You can't force someone to employ you. We've generally outlined narrow exceptions to that rule, and this generally isn't one.[0]

If you don't support a business's politics, if you don't think they'll use their money for good, you have the right not to give them yours. It doesn't seem at all intuitive to me that that right should disappear when the money's moving the other way.

(Of course that presumes a well-functioning market for labor... If (hah) that doesn't exist, we can only expect workers to be exploited in millions of different ways, large and small, and this is still not a good hill to die on.)

[0] I (and many HNers) happen to live in one of the few US states where political retaliation by employers is actually banned, and while I broadly appreciate the sentiment, I'm not at all sure it's morally superior in the way you're trying to claim. Look at what a huge problem liberal protection of political speech caused in Citizens United, for example.