That there is what you call a false equivalency. Because giving out someone's home address online is nothing like public reporting of their political donations. Which has been required by law since the 1970's. If you don't like it, write your Congresscritter. Next:
Keyword being "IMO." In MY HO, public disclosure of political donations is necessary for free and open elections. Citizens have a right to know who is financing candidates' elections, as the political positions of those financiers absolutely influence the candidates' positions. There's nothing intimidating about it; no one is forced to donate to candidates. If you're convinced you're going to be hassled by the IRS, and you have something to hide from the IRS (otherwise why worry about being hassled by them?) then don't make political contributions.
None of which was inaccurate. There's a saying, only the truth hurts.
I wouldn't care. I'd love to be rich enough that someone gave a sh*t about where my political donations go. And apparently Bill Mahar doesn't care who knows he donated $1 million to Obama.
And here are a few pieces, easily google-able, that list the names of big political donors- the Times one is about Obama's big contributors.
http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticle...=1202548974101
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/us...pagewanted=all
I look forward to your explanation of how the NYTimes is trying to intimidate people out of donating to Obama by listing the names of his big donors.