Campaign funding should be more transparent. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has made it less so in its Citizens United ruling. Money equates with power, and the public should have a right to know which groups and individuals are contributing to a candidate's campaign. Otherwise, there is the potential for back room deals, which harms democracy.
Because the use of the word, illegal, in the debate question raises all kinds of flags that should draw attention to not only the contribution but to the campaigner. There should great repercussions from any illegal contribution to a US campaign and that repercussion should come from the campaigner and that campaigner should express his/her reasons they quantified the contribution to be illegal.
In the past, big donors have been guaranteed certain access to lawmakers and party power brokers—dinner, wine, a one-to-one chat—in exchange for their generosity. Trump and Clinton will now gear up for their respective national conventions, where they enjoy a spectacular carnival of party pride—paid for by precisely those billionaires, lobbyists, corporations and Super PACs whose names we won’t know.
It is nothing new that the world of politics is shrouded in deceit and mystery. No one can truly know the truth unless one is involved directly. Campaign funding can be manipulated to look honest to the public but one can never confidently be sure that the politicians running these campaigns are 100 percent transparent.