Apparently small donors are just as bad as dark money groups:

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) on Wednesday said broad-based, small-dollar contributions given to Democratic candidates through online donor platforms is the “same exact thing” as political spending by well-heeled “dark money” groups who are allowed to conceal their funding sources.

During a Senate panel hearing about the influence of money over the federal judiciary, Tillis appeared to take aim at ActBlue, an app that helps Democrats and liberal groups collect individual contributions in amounts that are too small to trigger mandatory disclosure rules.

Bolding mine, because little Thommy seems to have a math problem. Let's go through this again, Einstein: it would take a hundred transactions of $50 a pop to equal one $5,000 check from Daddy Warbucks. And these genuine dark money groups, which often receive between $50,000 and $250,000 from individuals, would take thousands of small transactions to achieve. Why (in the name of all that's holy) would a wealthy individual go to such trouble to mask their contributions? The answer is they wouldn't, of course. This is just Tillis grasping at strawmen:

Tillis said he was open to working with Democrats on requiring more transparency from dark money groups but only if Democrats included small-dollar platforms as part of the measure, a prospect Tillis expressed doubts about.

“I don't hear anybody on the Democratic side saying they want to get rid of those tools,” Tillis said, describing the technology with the epithet “Dem Money.”

“They simply found another way to do exactly the same thing: people providing money to candidates and influencing elections,” he said of Democrats. “They’ve just come up with a more sophisticated, broad-based policy that I doubt very seriously that they'd be willing to abandon.”

An ActBlue spokesperson said the group reports even its smallest donations to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which oversees fundraising for federal campaigns.

I can't even begin to articulate just how stupid that argument is, but it merges the strawman fallacy with argumentum ad ignorantiam:

(Draws a conclusion based on lack of knowledge or evidence without accounting for all possibilities)

"I take the view that this lack (of enemy subversive activity in the west coast) is the most ominous sign in our whole situation. It convinces me more than perhaps any other factor that the sabotage we are to get, the Fifth Column activities are to get, are timed just like Pearl Harbor ... I believe we are just being lulled into a false sense of security." – Earl Warren, then California's Attorney General (before a congressional hearing in San Francisco on 21 February 1942).

We are stuck with this jackass for six more years. *sigh*