The list of donors to all California ballot propositions is in the public record. That's just the law. Everyone donating to ballot propositions knows it. If they don't want their donation to be public, they don't have to donate.

Personally I disagree - I think donations to political causes and organizations should be considered public speech. Participation in a democracy takes 'a certain amount of civic courage.'

I think that sentiment makes sense on a plainly logical level, but it doesn't work in reality, because it legitimizes our current plutocracy.

I could be more amenable to your viewpoint if the donation amount is hidden, though.

Edited to add: also agree with gcp's point, and am annoyed that it didn't occur to me, which it should have.

This makes it impossible for a minority movement to slowly gain traction.

Why do you think secrecy in voting is widely considered to be necessary for true democracy?

It's not impossible, and while some forms of secrecy are necessary, I don't think they are "widely considered to be necessary," even if "true democracy" was a well-settled concept that happened to agree with your understanding of it. We just don't see eye to eye on this and likely won't ever.

You're basically not saying anything except, "I disagree."

Voting is the same type of public, political speech that donations are. Indeed, in a world where money is indisputably an overwhelmingly dominant medium through which votes are gained (that is effectively the point of donations), they are practically synonymous.